/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Non Muslims, how do you explain the existence of the Quran/Sincerity of the Prophet?



Pages : [1] 2

Tyrion
07-20-2010, 06:12 AM
Hello everyone,

I noticed we have some really intelligent non Muslim members on this forum, so I figured this would be the ideal place to ask this question. (Muslim members are encouraged to post too!) But first, a bit about myself and why I’m asking this:

I’m currently a University Student in California, and as most of you know, when one goes to University they are exposed to a number of different world views, and typically you have your own views challenged. The reason I am able to go out and immerse myself in classes that deal with western philosophies and ideas about man is because I feel like I already have one basic truth, which is Islam. With this knowledge, I then am able to interpret and see ideas through this Islamic lens, so things that many non Muslims claim prove that religion is outdated are reconciled. From what I currently know, I see no reason to doubt that Muhammad (pbuh) was not sincere, and that he was not speaking the words of God. Whenever I read the Quran or read about Islamic history, it just seems very unlikely to me that Muhammad was anything other than the final prophet, and that the Quran was not his word.

What I want to know is, as nonbelievers, how do you explain Muhammad, and the Quran? If you claim it to be his word, why is that? What motives were there? What about all the signs that point to his sincerity? I’m really interested in your responses, and my intention here really is to learn. I apologize in advance if this question has already been tackled in the past, and I hope my post was clear. :p
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
PouringRain
07-20-2010, 03:49 PM
I may not be sure about what you are asking. Are you asking how non-muslims view Mohammed, the qur'an, and Mohammed's motives? Are you wanting to ask for arguments against what you believe as a muslim in the attempt to try and understand how others view Mohammed differently?


As for me personally, I believe Mohammed was a prophet of God, sent to bring the people back to him, and the qur'an is given by inspiration from God.

As far as counter arguments/ theories, I have read many. One of the most interesting things I read said that Khadijah was a monotheist, from a monotheist family, and Mohammed was a puppet used by her family in order to promote that monotheism.
Reply

Hiroshi
07-20-2010, 05:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
Hello everyone,

I noticed we have some really intelligent non Muslim members on this forum, so I figured this would be the ideal place to ask this question. (Muslim members are encouraged to post too!) But first, a bit about myself and why I’m asking this:

I’m currently a University Student in California, and as most of you know, when one goes to University they are exposed to a number of different world views, and typically you have your own views challenged. The reason I am able to go out and immerse myself in classes that deal with western philosophies and ideas about man is because I feel like I already have one basic truth, which is Islam. With this knowledge, I then am able to interpret and see ideas through this Islamic lens, so things that many non Muslims claim prove that religion is outdated are reconciled. From what I currently know, I see no reason to doubt that Muhammad (pbuh) was not sincere, and that he was not speaking the words of God. Whenever I read the Quran or read about Islamic history, it just seems very unlikely to me that Muhammad was anything other than the final prophet, and that the Quran was not his word.

What I want to know is, as nonbelievers, how do you explain Muhammad, and the Quran? If you claim it to be his word, why is that? What motives were there? What about all the signs that point to his sincerity? I’m really interested in your responses, and my intention here really is to learn. I apologize in advance if this question has already been tackled in the past, and I hope my post was clear. :p
Hi Tyrion.

I find this question of yours interesting. I don't want to become unpopular, or cause any offence to anyone. But I have to say that if the Qur'an is not from God then it would contain mistakes. And there do seem to be mistakes in it.

For instance (everyone knows this example) Moses had a sister called Miriam, a brother called Aaron and a father called Amram. In Arabic these names are Musa, Maryam, Harun and Imran. But of course, Mary the mother of Jesus is also called Maryam in Arabic. Now however much I try, I cannot believe that the Qur'an hasn't got Mary confused with Miriam when I read that Harun is her brother (Soorah 19:28) and that Imran is her father (Soorah 66:12). How can Mary have the same name, the same brother and the same father as Miriam? Hadiths record that even Muslims in Mohammed's day understood Soorah 19:28 to mean that Aaron was the literal fleshly brother of Mary the mother of Jesus.
Reply

جوري
07-20-2010, 05:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Hi Tyrion.

I find this question of yours interesting. I don't want to become unpopular, or cause any offence to anyone. But I have to say that if the Qur'an is not from God then it would contain mistakes. And there do seem to be mistakes in it.

For instance (everyone knows this example) Moses had a sister called Miriam, a brother called Aaron and a father called Amram. In Arabic these names are Musa, Maryam, Harun and Imran. But of course, Mary the mother of Jesus is also called Maryam in Arabic. Now however much I try, I cannot believe that the Qur'an hasn't got Mary confused with Miriam when I read that Harun is her brother (Soorah 19:28) and that Imran is her father (Soorah 66:12). How can Mary have the same name, the same brother and the same father as Miriam? Hadiths record that even Muslims in Mohammed's day understood Soorah 19:28 to mean that Aaron was the literal fleshly brother of Mary the mother of Jesus.
what is your evidence that it was a 'literal' sibling of Aaron other than the answering Islam website.. I challenge you to bring me an Islamic source where it is understood that Miriam (p) was the literal sibling of Aaron!

all the best
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
جوري
07-20-2010, 05:20 PM
قراءة : 650 | طباعة : 68 | إرسال لصديق : 0 | عدد المقيمين : 3







ورد في القرآن عند الحديث عن قصة مريم ، قوله تعالى: { يا أخت هارون ما كان أبوك امرأ سوء وما كانت أمك بغيا } (مريم:28) وقد اعتبر فريق من النصارى، أن القرآن قد وقع في خلط واضطراب، عندما وصف مريم بأنها أخت هارون ، مع الفارق الزمني بين العصر الذي وجد فيه هارون النبي، والعصر الذي وجدت فيه مريم أم عيسى ؛ فأهل التاريخ يتحدثون عن ألف ومئتي سنة بينهما، وربما كان الفاصل الزمني بينهما أكثر من ذلك .
بالمقابل، فإن الكتاب المقدس ( الإنجيل ) قد خلا من هذا الخلط والاضطراب، إذ لم يرد فيه ذكر لـ مريم إلا على أنها أم عيسى ، وابنة عمران ، لا أخت هارون ، وبالتالي فإن في هذا ما يثبت وقوع الخلط والاضطراب في القرآن .
هذا حاصل الشبهة، وما قيل فيها، ومقالنا التالي مكرس للرد على هذه الشبهة وتفنيدها، وردنا عليها من وجوه، منها:
- أن المتأمل في السياق القرآني الذي وردت فيه الآية، يجد ما يدل دلالة واضحة، على أن هذا الوصف الذي وُصِفت به مريم ، لم يكن تسمية قرآنية، وإنما جاء وصفًا حكاه القرآن على لسان قوم مريم ، وما خاطبوها ونادوها به عندما حملت بـ عيسى ، مستنكرين ذلك الحمل، واتهموها في عرضها وشرفها وعفافها .
وحكاية القرآن لأقوال أقوام آخرين أمر وارد ومعهود؛ كما في قوله تعالى: { قالوا يا قومنا إنا سمعنا كتابا أنزل من بعد موسى مصدقا لما بين يديه يهدي إلى الحق وإلى طريق مستقيم } (الأحقاف:30)، فالقرآن هنا ناقل لقول الجن، وإلا فأين ذكر الإنجيل، وهو قبل القرآن ؟ فالله سبحانه نقل ما قالوا فحسب، وإلا فالواقع التاريخي غير ذلك .
وهكذا السياق القرآني في سورة مريم جاء ناقلاً قول اليهود في حق مريم ، قال تعالى: { فأتت به قومها تحمله قالوا يا مريم لقد جئت شيئًا فريًا * يا أخت هارون ما كان أبوك امرأ سوء وما كانت أمك بغيًا * فأشارت إليه قالوا كيف نكلم من كان في المهد صبيًا } (مريم:27-29) فقوله سبحانه: { يا أخت هارون } إنما هو حكاية لتلك المقولة التي صدرت عن قوم مريم ، وإثبات الاسم واللقب لا يدل على أن المسمى واحد. أما معرفة السبب في وصف قوم مريم لها { يا أخت هارون } فهذا أمر آخر، ساكت عنه النص القرآني، وينبغي البحث عنه فيما وراء ذلك .
- على أن سياق الآية - وهذا هو الأهم - لم يرد في معرض ذكر نسب مريم ؛ فالقرآن لم يقل: إن مريم أخت هارون ، وإنما ورد في معرض التوبيخ لها؛ لأنها في اعتقاد اليهود حملت سفاحاً، فما علاقة النسب الحقيقي بالسفاح ؟
- وهنا ينبغي أن يثار سؤال: لماذا قال اليهود: { يا أخت هارون } ولم يقولوا: ( يا أخت موسى وهارون ) أو ( يا أخت موسى )؟ لا شك أنهم لم يقولوا ذلك عبثاً، وإنما نسبوها إلى هارون ؛ لأن هارون - بحسب زعمهم - كان مصدر عار لهم، حيث صنع لهم عجلاً. وأيضاً فإن مريم العذراء - بحسب زعمهم أيضاً - فعلت عاراً؛ لهذا تهكموا بها واستهزؤوا منها قائلين: { يا أخت هارون } .
- ثم يقال أيضًا: إن هذه التسمية في حق مريم ، إما إنها أطلقت في القرآن على سبيل الحقيقة، أو إنها أطلقت عليها على سبيل التشبيه. وحملها على سبيل الحقيقة أمر غير مستنكر؛ إذ ليس ثمة ما يمنع أن يكون لـ مريم أخ اسمه هارون ؛ يؤيد هذا أن التسمية بـ ( هارون ) كانت شائعة ودارجة كثيرًا في بني إسرائيل، وأيضًا ليس في ذكر قصة ولادتها، ما يدل على أنه لم يكن لها أخ سواها. وعلى هذا، فالتعبير القرآني بـ: { يا أخت هارون } يمكن حمله على الحقيقة، فيكون لـ مريم أخ اسمه هارون ، كان صالحًا في قومه، خاطبوها بالإضافة إليه، زيادة في التوبيخ، أي: ما كان لأخت مثله أن تفعل فعلتك .
وحمل هذه التسمية على التشبيه أمر وارد أيضاً وغير مستبعد، خصوصاً إذا علمنا أن التسمية بأسماء الآباء والأمهات تشريفاً بهم، شيء معروف، ولا سيما و هارون كان سيد قومه مهاباً عظيماً له شأن في بني إسرائيل. وقد جاء في السنة النبوية ما يؤيد هذا، ففي ( صحيح مسلم ) وغيره عن المغيرة بن شعبة قال: بعثني رسول الله إلى أهل نجران فقالوا: أرأيت ما تقرؤون { يا أخت هارون } و موسى قبل عيسى بكذا وكذا" ؟ قال المغيرة : فلم أدر ما أقول. فلما قدمت على رسول الله ذكرت ذلك له، فقال: ( ألم يعلموا أنهم كانوا يسمون بأسماء أنبيائهم والصالحين قبلهم } .
على أن في إنجيل لوقا ، ما يفيد أن لـ مريم نسب مع النبي هارون أخي موسى ، عن طريق زكريا ، الذي كان متزوجًا امرأة من ذرية هارون اسمها أليصابات، وكانت امرأته نسيبة مريم ، والصحيح أنها كانت خالتها، ونص الإنجيل هو: { كَانَ فِي أَيَّامِ هِيرُودُسَ مَلِكِ الْيَهُودِيَّةِ كَاهِنٌ اسْمُهُ زَكَرِيَّا مِنْ فِرْقَةِ أَبِيَّا وَامْرَأَتُهُ مِنْ بَنَاتِ هَارُونَ وَاسْمُهَا أَلِيصَابَاتُ. وَكَانَا كِلاَهُمَا بَارَّيْنِ أَمَامَ اللهِ } ( لوقا: الأصحاح الأول/ 5 ) وفيه أيضًا: { وَهُوَذَا أَلِيصَابَاتُ نَسِيبَتُكِ هِيَ أَيْضًا حُبْلَى بِابْنٍ فِي شَيْخُوخَتِهَا } ( لوقا: الأصحاح الأول/36) وبحسب نص الإنجيل نفسه، فلا يبعد أن يكون لـ مريم نسب بعيد مع النبي هارون ، وعلى هذا فلا إشكال في التعبير القرآني .
- ومما يؤيد أن يكون المراد بلفظ ( الأخت ) هنا التشبيه لا الحقيقة، أن لفظ ( الأخ ) في القرآن يرد على سبيل الحقيقة، ويرد على سبيل المجاز، ومن الإطلاقات المجازية لهذا اللفظ قوله تعالى: { وما نريهم من آية إلا هي أكبر من أختها } (الزخرف:84)، فـ ( الأخوة ) بين الآيات أخوة مجازية، وليست حقيقية، وأيضاً قوله سبحانه: { واذكر أخا عاد } (الأحقاف:21)، فالمقصود بـ { أخا عاد }هو هود عليه السلام، ومعلوم أن هوداً لم يكن أخاً لعاد، وإنما كان حفيداً له، وبينهما مئات السنين. وعلى هذا فمعنى أنها أخت هارون : أنها من نسله وذريته، كما يقال للتميمي: يا أخا تميم، وللقرشي: يا أخا قريش، وللعربي: يا أخا العرب. فمعنى قولهم: { يا أخت هارون } أي: يا من أنتِ من ذرية ذلك النبي الصالح، كيف فعلت هذه الفعلة ؟
فعلى ما تقدم وتبيَّن، يكون في معنى قول القرآن: { يا أخت هارون } احتمالان، كلاهما له ما يؤيده: أحدهما: أنها الأخت حقيقة؛ وهذا على معنى أنه كان لها أخ اسمه هارون ؛ والثاني: المشابهة؛ وهذا على معنى أن ثمة قرابة بعيدة كانت تربطها بـ هارون أخي موسى ، أو على معنى نسبتها لرجل صالح في زمنها كان يسمى هارون .
- على أن مما يدحض قول من يقول بهذه الشبهة أن يقال له: كيف يسكت اليهود - وهم ألد أعداء الإسلام- على هذا الخطأ التاريخي الفاحش، ولم يعتبروه مأخذاً على القرآن والإسلام ؟ وهل من شأن هؤلاء القوم أن يغضوا الطرف عن مثل هذا الخطأ، لو كان الأمر كذلك ؟
ومن مجموع ما تقدم يزول الإشكال الذي قد يرد على الآية، وتبطل دعوى الخلط والاضطراب في القرآن التي يدعيها البعض .
ومن المفيد في هذا السياق، أن ننبه إلى أن ما ورد في بعض المصادر من أن محمد بن كعب القرظي قد قال في قوله الله: { يا أخت هارون } قال: هي أخت هارون لأبيه وأمه، وهي أخت موسى أخي هارون ، التي قَصَّت أثر موسى عليه السلام: { فبصرت به عن جنب وهم لا يشعرون } (القصص:11) نقول: إن ما ورد في هذا خطأ محض. ودليل خطئه أن القرآن قد ذكر أنه أتبع بـ عيسى بعد الرسل، فدل هذا على أن عيسى آخر الأنبياء بعثًا، وليس بعده إلا محمد، ولو كان الأمر كما زعم محمد بن كعب القرظي، لم يكن عيسى متأخرًا عن الرسل، ولكان قبل سليمان و داود ، فإن القرآن قد ذكر أن داود جاء بعد موسى ، في قوله تعالى: { ألم تر إلى الملإ من بني إسرائيل من بعد موسى إذ قالوا لنبي لهم ابعث لنا ملكًا نقاتل في سبيل الله } (البقرة:246) وذكر القصة إلى أن قال: { وقتل داود جالوت } (البقرة:251) فدلت الآيات القرآنية على أن موسى و هارون متقدمان على داود في الزمن .


http://www.islamweb.net/media/index....ang=A&id=74894



stick it into google and translate, you'll see the christian desperation..

all the best
Reply

Pygoscelis
07-20-2010, 07:58 PM
Tyrion, I reject Islam for the same reason you reject other religions. I don't think it has anything to do with the sincerity of its believers or claimed prophet. I would not call Mohammed a liar, just as you would not call Appalonius or Buddha a liar. I also don't think it has a whole lot to do with reasons NOT to believe so much as not having reasons TO believe. Why don't you accept all these other ideologies you are now learning about in school as truth? Probably not because you doubt the honesty of their practitioners, but more because you simply have no reason to believe as they do - you have your own thing.
Reply

atheistbynature
07-20-2010, 08:08 PM
I see no reason to suppose the Quran is true, so it doesn't need explaining as such. As far as I am aware there is no way of checking what it says and no other sources that concur with it. It was written a long time ago and only has one author, and no-one else has said to have been told the same thing by god. There is no reason (though I'm sure you'll say there is one) to have to explain it any more than any other holy books past or present.

Although its likely that Mohammed was sincere, or he wouldn't have had any reason to do the things he did this does not mean he was correct.

I'm quite aware I'm not the most knowledgeable person on this subject (please correct me if I'm wrong) but I think my basic points still stand.
Reply

Salahudeen
07-20-2010, 08:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by atheistbynature
I see no reason to suppose the Quran is true, so it doesn't need explaining as such. As far as I am aware there is no way of checking what it says and no other sources that concur with it. It was written a long time ago and only has one author, and no-one else has said to have been told the same thing by god. There is no reason (though I'm sure you'll say there is one) to have to explain it any more than any other holy books past or present.

Although its likely that Mohammed was sincere, or he wouldn't have had any reason to do the things he did this does not mean he was correct.

I'm quite aware I'm not the most knowledgeable person on this subject (please correct me if I'm wrong) but I think my basic points still stand.
We believe Abraham, Moses, Jesus and all the prophets called to the same thing as Muhammed, and that is to worship God alone without any partners. We simply believe Muhammed was another prophet just like Jesus,Abraham, Moses, Jonah. And they all called their people to the worship of God alone and nothing else.

If I am not mistaken the 10 commandments concur with what Muhammed brought (Thy shall worship the Lord without associating any partners with him) Think thats it lol. And this is exactly what Muhammed (saw) preached. Just like the other prophets.
Reply

Hiroshi
07-20-2010, 08:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


what is your evidence that it was a 'literal' sibling of Aaron other than the answering Islam website.. I challenge you to bring me an Islamic source where it is understood that Miriam (p) was the literal sibling of Aaron!

all the best
In Sahih Muslim, the Hadith related by Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, #5326, says:
"When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read "Sister of Harun", (i.e. Mary), in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born well before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger I asked him about that, and he said: "The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostle and pious persons who had gone before them.""





When this Muslim went to speak with the Christians of Najran he was under the impression that Mary was the actual sister of Aaron. And when the Christians objected he could not explain the problem.
Reply

جوري
07-20-2010, 09:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
In Sahih Muslim, the Hadith related by Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, #5326, says:
"When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read "Sister of Harun", (i.e. Mary), in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born well before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger I asked him about that, and he said: "The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostle and pious persons who had gone before them.""





When this Muslim went to speak with the Christians of Najran he was under the impression that Mary was the actual sister of Aaron. And when the Christians objected he could not explain the problem.
and it looks like the Islamic view was cleared right there and then in the days of old by the messenger himself no? follow all the verses in the Quran in the post I linked in Arabic you'll see a proper sequence to the prophets and their relatives as such wasn't even mentioned in the previous scriptures, if such were an actual 'literal error' it would have been apparent then to the naked eye throughout all the verses including suret al ahqaf and suret al baqara and suret az-zukhruf etc. and not a modern day christian fundie addendum--

all the best
Reply

Salahudeen
07-20-2010, 09:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Hi Tyrion.

I find this question of yours interesting. I don't want to become unpopular, or cause any offence to anyone. But I have to say that if the Qur'an is not from God then it would contain mistakes. And there do seem to be mistakes in it.

For instance (everyone knows this example) Moses had a sister called Miriam, a brother called Aaron and a father called Amram. In Arabic these names are Musa, Maryam, Harun and Imran. But of course, Mary the mother of Jesus is also called Maryam in Arabic. Now however much I try, I cannot believe that the Qur'an hasn't got Mary confused with Miriam when I read that Harun is her brother (Soorah 19:28) and that Imran is her father (Soorah 66:12). How can Mary have the same name, the same brother and the same father as Miriam? Hadiths record that even Muslims in Mohammed's day understood Soorah 19:28 to mean that Aaron was the literal fleshly brother of Mary the mother of Jesus.
This is also one of the reasons I can't believe the bible to be from God, because of all the contradictions and errors. Also if you want to learn Islam it's best to ask your questions to the Muslims and not use hate sites which only have 1 goal.
Reply

titus
07-21-2010, 03:18 AM
how do you explain Muhammad, and the Quran? If you claim it to be his word, why is that? What motives were there? What about all the signs that point to his sincerity?
As someone that is not Muslim there are only two options, really, when it comes to Muhammad. Either he believed what he was saying (and was therefore not right in the head), or he was manipulating people to do what he wanted. He grew up knowing about Christianity and Judaism and therefore had the knowledge necessary to write the Quran and change it in ways that he wanted, and since he was the sole author it made it easy to avoid contradictions. If the Quran had been written in a place that had little or no knowledge of Christianity or Judaism, such as the Americas, then maybe it would give me pause, but to me it seems he simply adapted religions that already existed to create a new one.

The signs that point to his sincerity are basically Muslim sources, none of which would dare say anything to insult him, so their veracity (to many of us non-Muslims) is in doubt.

As for motives, who knows. He was able to gain political power and more because of his teachings, but nobody can truly know what his motives were.

Please take none of this post as an insult. It is not intended as such.

As an analogy, the closest thing I can think of may be the way that Muslims feel towards Joseph Smith and Mormonism. Do you believe his sincerity, and if not then what do you think his motives were? There are probably almost as many answers as there are people with opinions on the matter.
Reply

Rabi Mansur
07-21-2010, 04:10 AM
As an analogy, the closest thing I can think of may be the way that Muslims feel towards Joseph Smith and Mormonism. Do you believe his sincerity, and if not then what do you think his motives were? There are probably almost as many answers as there are people with opinions on the matter.

:sl:

Good point. Therefore, I think it is incumbent on all people to spend the time doing as much study and research as possible rather than just follow what one's parents or ancestors followed. Maybe Joseph Smith and Muhammad (pbuh) were both sincere, but they both can't be correct.

But I have to say, from my personal experience, there is a lot more evidence (actually a mountain of evidence) that reveals Joseph Smith was a fraud than anything I was able to find against Muhammad (pbuh). Most of the anti-Islamic sites aren't all that reputable IMHO and slant the evidence. With Joseph Smith, it is pretty easy to demonstrate he was a fraud. There are lots of errors in the Book of Mormon and in his other "revelations" but believers are too blind to see.

But you do make a good point. Most Mormons, even if they admit there are problems with their church, still fall back on the argument that their prophets must have been sincere. They feel like their leaders would never lead them astray. Hence, they continue to blindly follow Joseph Smith.

Sincerity alone isn't the best test for a true prophet. It takes more than sincerity.

:wa:
Reply

YusufNoor
07-21-2010, 04:16 AM
:sl:

From what I currently know, I see no reason to doubt that Muhammad (pbuh) was not sincere, and that he was not speaking the words of God.
in general, Westerners could give a crap about Rasoolullah, PBUH. thanks to Muslims as a whole, they see Islam a cause of beheadings, women "opressed" by the niqab, freeking honor killings, suicide bombers who want to trade their life for some real estate and cash for the family, guys who want to "buy" little children to marry, etc...

as for the Qur'an, English translations can be dreadful, EVEN IN books by Muslims [interpreters who first language ISN'T English], leading to crap this:
When this Muslim went to speak with the Christians of Najran he was under the impression that Mary was the actual sister of Aaron. And when the Christians objected he could not explain the problem.
in my neck of the woods, we have Muslims lying to get govt benefits in large numbers, men with multiple wives, but don't support them or their kids. the list goes on and on. [don't even ask about ticking off the neighbors at Jummuah, Fajr, Isha]

MAYBE, just MAYBE a few will be exposed to some decent Muslim, might even be exposed to some dawah. the SINCERE ONES, Allah guides [In Sha'a Allah], leaving us with the haters.

SINCERITY should begin with the Muslims, but it appears that Muslims have much different goals than spreading Islam.

May Allah Subhannahu wa Ta Aala guide us all.

:wa:
Reply

Hiroshi
07-21-2010, 06:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


and it looks like the Islamic view was cleared right there and then in the days of old by the messenger himself no? follow all the verses in the Quran in the post I linked in Arabic you'll see a proper sequence to the prophets and their relatives as such wasn't even mentioned in the previous scriptures, if such were an actual 'literal error' it would have been apparent then to the naked eye throughout all the verses including suret al ahqaf and suret al baqara and suret az-zukhruf etc. and not a modern day christian fundie addendum--

all the best
There is another Hadith (can't find the reference just now) where Aisha expresses surprise and disbelief at hearing that Mary is not Aaron's literal sister. The one bringing her the news tells her that he has investigated and discovered that Aaron and Mary lived centuries apart. It seems that the full historical picture of the Bible characters and their relatives (as found in other passages in the Qur'an) was only made completely clear gradually and with the passing of time. But in earlier parts of the Qur'an these mistakes are evident.
Reply

Hiroshi
07-21-2010, 07:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by squiggle
This is also one of the reasons I can't believe the bible to be from God, because of all the contradictions and errors.
The Bible is under attack from many critics who claim to see errors and contradictions in it. And it is natural that you should want to throw the ball back into my court. Well, I would be willing to discuss any such errors or contradictions that you have to show me.
format_quote Originally Posted by squiggle
Also if you want to learn Islam it's best to ask your questions to the Muslims and not use hate sites which only have 1 goal.
I know that "Answering Islam" make a big deal out of this. But the honest truth is, I did not learn about it from them. I bought a copy of the Qur'an translated by Marmaduke Pickthall and found all the details in a foreword to Soorah 3 "Al-Imran". I might ask, btw, who is the Imran in the title supposed to be? Dawood's translations mentions both Imran the father of Moses and Aaron and also Imran the supposed father of Mary, in footnotes. These were two unrelated men who lived 1,500 years apart.
Reply

Hiroshi
07-21-2010, 07:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


and it looks like the Islamic view was cleared right there and then in the days of old by the messenger himself no? follow all the verses in the Quran in the post I linked in Arabic you'll see a proper sequence to the prophets and their relatives as such wasn't even mentioned in the previous scriptures, if such were an actual 'literal error' it would have been apparent then to the naked eye throughout all the verses including suret al ahqaf and suret al baqara and suret az-zukhruf etc. and not a modern day christian fundie addendum--

all the best
I found that reference now:

Here is what Ibn Kathir narrated:
وَقَالَ اِبْن جَرِير حَدَّثَنِي يَعْقُوب حَدَّثَنَا اِبْن عُلَيَّة عَنْ سَعِيد بْن أَبِي صَدَقَة عَنْ مُحَمَّد بْن سِيرِينَ قَالَ أُنْبِئْت أَنَّ كَعْبًا قَالَ إِنَّ قَوْله : " يَا أُخْت هَارُون " لَيْسَ بِهَارُون أَخِي مُوسَى قَالَ فَقَالَتْ لَهُ عَائِشَة كَذَبْت قَالَ يَا أُمّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ إِنْ كَانَ النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَهُ فَهُوَ أَعْلَم وَأَخْبَر وَإِلَّا فَإِنِّي أَجِد بَيْنهمَا سِتّمِائَةِ سَنَة قَالَ فَسَكَتَتْ وَفِي هَذَا التَّارِيخ نَظَر
It was narrated from Ibn Jarir, narrated from Yaqub, narrated from Ibn U’laya, narrated from Sa’id Ibn Abi Sadaqa, narrated from Muhammad Ibn Sireen who stated that he was told that Ka’b said the verse that reads, "O sister of Harun (Aaron)!" (of Sura 19:28) does not refer to Aaron the brother of Moses. Aisha replied to Ka'b, "You have lied." Ka’b responded, "O Mother of the believers! If the prophet, may Allah’s prayers be upon him, has said it, and he is more knowledgeable, then this is what he related. Besides, I find the difference in time between them (Jesus and Moses) to be 600 years." He said that she remained silent.
(From the Arabic commentary of Ibn Kathir on Sura 19:28)


This is from Ibn Kathir's commentary. Is it also Hadith?
Reply

Tyrion
07-21-2010, 07:46 AM
Hiroshi,

I'm a little confused as to what you're trying to say here... The Islamic sources you've pointed out only say that the prophet knew and preached that the verse doesn't refer to the Aaron of Moses's time. Perhaps the companions misunderstood, which isn't that hard to believe since we seem to have people here on this board who don't understand the verse.. But the fact the Prophet himself corrected his companions and said one thing is enough to show that there was no mix up in the verse...
Reply

جوري
07-21-2010, 09:58 AM
I actually don't understand what you are arguing for or against? It would seem that if the verse were in error as you suggest or that messenger (p) copied a translated bible that such a reference wouldn't be made, as there is nothing in your books to suggest her lineage and well we all know how the Jews viewed which is precisely the reason for the verse is to mock her, not by calling her the sister of Moses who brought them the commandments but the sister of Aaron who was present when they took a golden calf for worship and as the commentary for the Quran references if you'd bother read -- further, the sequence of the other verses where the lineage of Moses, Solomon, Goliath etc etc. would also be equally in error, and that he wouldn't correct his companions right there and then before a christian millenniums later decides to pick up on that as an error. In other words you have no argument to stand on whatsoever!

Further, it is the job of the messenger to teach, people are in error even about how to perform fast.. one took it literally and put a light strand and a dark strand beneath his pillow and would see which one appeared to him to break fast or remain fasting, and that itself should take care of some of the more strange amongst you who wonder if the Quran is from God, what the use is of the messenger.. the sunna is how we are taught to understand the Quran and how to perform rituals...

All of this in fact are a testament to the messenger's prophethood.. Looking at his entire history, the history of the region, the works that were in existence, superimposing them on reality and the time, it isn't hard to see why the Jews would be lost in the desert for 40 years in a small stretch of land while the Muslims take down a 300 year tyrant empire in a matter of 19 days.. Islam has been powerful since its inception and a couple of fundies with cheesy websites are still not able to curb that modern day with a rate of conversion in the U.S of 20,000 a year!~

all the best
Reply

Rabi Mansur
07-21-2010, 04:26 PM
:sl:

The Jews refer to Mary in Surah 19 as "O sister of Aaron!"

This actually makes pretty good sense to me. Her cousin was Elizabeth who the NT tells us was of Aaronic descent. Hence, it is likely that Mary was also of Aaron. She is also mentioned as being pious and in the temple frequently. Also consistent. "Sister of Aaron" could be referring to her Aaronic priesthood lineage, I don't see it as a direct statement that she had an actual brother named Aaron.

My two cents.

:wa:
Reply

glo
07-21-2010, 04:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
As for motives, who knows. He was able to gain political power and more because of his teachings, but nobody can truly know what his motives were.

Please take none of this post as an insult. It is not intended as such.
Not wanting to take this thread off topic, but your comments remind me of something I have pondered before:
The difference between Jesus and Muhammad in that context.

Jesus never intended to take political power. He always spoke very clearly of the kingdom of God not being 'of this world'. Those who had hoped that he would overthrow the Romans and get rid of their occupation of Israel were sorely disappointed. He never sought power of that kind. He spoke and preached to the simple people and sought to change people's hearts from the inside, rather than 'change the system'.

Muhammad, on the other hand, became quite a social reformer and a man of political and military power and standing. Islam, taken to its full extend, is much more than just a 'change on the inside' - it aims to change systems, societies and politics. It very much is a worldly power as well as a religion.

(I am not making a value judgement here, it is just a marked difference which I thought was worth mentioning)
Reply

جوري
07-21-2010, 04:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Rabi Mansur
:sl:

The Jews refer to Mary in Surah 19 as "O sister of Aaron!"

This actually makes pretty good sense to me. Her cousin was Elizabeth who the NT tells us was of Aaronic descent. Hence, it is likely that Mary was also of Aaron. She is also mentioned as being pious and in the temple frequently. Also consistent. "Sister of Aaron" could be referring to her Aaronic priesthood lineage, I don't see it as a direct statement that she had an actual brother named Aaron.

My two cents.

:wa:
:sl: akhi, they said it to her to be caustic and sardonic, for the obvious reason, however Allah swt exonerated her there and then, as Jesus (p) spoke as an infant.

and Allah swt knows best

:w:
Reply

Pygoscelis
07-21-2010, 06:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
:sl:



in general, Westerners could give a crap about Rasoolullah, PBUH. thanks to Muslims as a whole, they see Islam a cause of beheadings, women "opressed" by the niqab, freeking honor killings, suicide bombers who want to trade their life for some real estate and cash for the family, guys who want to "buy" little children to marry, etc...

as for the Qur'an, English translations can be dreadful, EVEN IN books by Muslims [interpreters who first language ISN'T English], leading to crap this:


in my neck of the woods, we have Muslims lying to get govt benefits in large numbers, men with multiple wives, but don't support them or their kids. the list goes on and on. [don't even ask about ticking off the neighbors at Jummuah, Fajr, Isha]

MAYBE, just MAYBE a few will be exposed to some decent Muslim, might even be exposed to some dawah. the SINCERE ONES, Allah guides [In Sha'a Allah], leaving us with the haters.

SINCERITY should begin with the Muslims, but it appears that Muslims have much different goals than spreading Islam.

May Allah Subhannahu wa Ta Aala guide us all.

:wa:
I think this is mostly a very vocal minority of muslims, and a media that fixates on them. It leads to the impression of Islam you note and builds hate against muslims that leads to things like the ban on the face veil in France.
Reply

Zafran
07-21-2010, 09:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo

Not wanting to take this thread off topic, but your comments remind me of something I have pondered before:
The difference between Jesus and Muhammad in that context.

Jesus never intended to take political power. He always spoke very clearly of the kingdom of God not being 'of this world'. Those who had hoped that he would overthrow the Romans and get rid of their occupation of Israel were sorely disappointed. He never sought power of that kind. He spoke and preached to the simple people and sought to change people's hearts from the inside, rather than 'change the system'.

Muhammad, on the other hand, became quite a social reformer and a man of political and military power and standing. Islam, taken to its full extend, is much more than just a 'change on the inside' - it aims to change systems, societies and politics. It very much is a worldly power as well as a religion.

(I am not making a value judgement here, it is just a marked difference which I thought was worth mentioning)
You forget something major about christ (pbuh) - when he comes back he will be political in christainty - furthermore In chirstainty Jesus pbuh is God - so that confuses things even more. Your also seeing him as only a prophet here who wants to change Isreal within - In the bible thats enough for the romans to see him as threat and try to kill him. Which is ultimatly political.

By the way christainty is just as much a worldy power as preety much any religion - the pope and the catholic church is a great example of that.

The big difference is that Jesus pbuh was rejected by most of the people he was sent to (Isreal) - with prophet muhammad pbuh all the people accepted him at his time.
Reply

aadil77
07-21-2010, 10:10 PM
hiroshi - start a new thread with your alleged 'mistakes' in the Quran
Reply

Tyrion
07-21-2010, 10:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
hiroshi - start a new thread with your alleged 'mistakes' in the Quran
I think that most of the "mistakes" in the Quran have been dealt with before, and a simple search through the forum should suffice for him. :p I don't think a new thread is necessary.
Reply

espada
07-21-2010, 10:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PouringRain
As for me personally, I believe Mohammed was a prophet of God, sent to bring the people back to him, and the qur'an is given by inspiration from God.
So are you saying that there is one God, and that Muhammad is His Messenger?

....

Let it rain, let it rain, let it rain ...
Reply

PouringRain
07-21-2010, 11:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by espada
So are you saying that there is one God, and that Muhammad is His Messenger?

....

Let it rain, let it rain, let it rain ...
Yes, I do believe there is one God, and Mohammed is a messenger of him.... but this thread is not about me. :)

I think you are the first person who has been inspired by my username to sing.
Reply

Rabi Mansur
07-22-2010, 02:44 AM
:sl:

FWIW here is what Muhammad Asad says in his commentary on 19:27.

"In ancient Semitic usage, a person's name was often linked with that of a renowned ancestor or founder of the tribal line. Thus, for instance, a man of the tribe of Banu Tamim was sometimes addressed as "son of Tamim'' or "brother of Tamim." Since Mary belonged to the priestly caste, and hence descended from Aaron, the brother of Moses, she was call a "sister of Aaron" (in the same way as her cousin Elisabeth, the wife of Zachariah, is spoken of in Luke i, 5 as "one of the daughters of Aaron").

شكرا
Reply

Hiroshi
07-22-2010, 07:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Rabi Mansur
:sl:

FWIW here is what Muhammad Asad says in his commentary on 19:27.

"In ancient Semitic usage, a person's name was often linked with that of a renowned ancestor or founder of the tribal line. Thus, for instance, a man of the tribe of Banu Tamim was sometimes addressed as "son of Tamim'' or "brother of Tamim." Since Mary belonged to the priestly caste, and hence descended from Aaron, the brother of Moses, she was call a "sister of Aaron" (in the same way as her cousin Elisabeth, the wife of Zachariah, is spoken of in Luke i, 5 as "one of the daughters of Aaron").

شكرا
Hi Rabi Mansur.

Luke 1:5 does indeed call Elisabeth, Mary's relative, one of the daughters of Aaron. And it is very tempting to suggest that this explains everything. But it doesn't.

Most importantly, Mohammed's explanation in the Hadith stated, and please corect me if I am wrong, that Mary's brother was not Aaron the high priest, but a different man with the same name (and so named simply because high priest Aaron was a pious man). Btw, this still leaves unexplained how Mary's father also has the same name as Aaron's father and also how Mary happens to have the same name (in Arabic) as Aaron's sister.

So the idea that Mary was some descendant of Aaron the high priest doesn't help. In fact, although Mary was Elisabeth's relative, her genealogy shows that she descended from Judah, not Levi, Aaron's tribe. In any case, if Aaron had been her ancestor then she would have been called his daughter, not his sister.
Reply

Hiroshi
07-22-2010, 07:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
hiroshi - start a new thread with your alleged 'mistakes' in the Quran
As you wish.
Reply

Hiroshi
07-22-2010, 08:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
:sl:


as for the Qur'an, English translations can be dreadful, EVEN IN books by Muslims [interpreters who first language ISN'T English], leading to crap this:

"When this Muslim went to speak with the Christians of Najran he was under the impression that Mary was the actual sister of Aaron. And when the Christians objected he could not explain the problem."

:wa:
Please explain if my statement was incorrect.
Reply

جوري
07-22-2010, 12:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Hi Rabi Mansur.

Luke 1:5 does indeed call Elisabeth, Mary's relative, one of the daughters of Aaron. And it is very tempting to suggest that this explains everything. But it doesn't.
.
Did you not read anything I'd written at all? You actually contradict yourself especially so by the ahadith you've brought as evidence.
You were supposed to prove that it was a popular belief amongst Muslims that she was the literal sister of Aaron and that your orientalist 'scholars' have shown the Quran in error. I'll be waiting for you to do that!

all the best
Reply

Hiroshi
07-22-2010, 01:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

Did you not read anything I'd written at all? You actually contradict yourself especially so by the ahadith you've brought as evidence.
You were supposed to prove that it was a popular belief amongst Muslims that she was the literal sister of Aaron and that your orientalist 'scholars' have shown the Quran in error. I'll be waiting for you to do that!

all the best
Sorry if I don't always reply immediately. I don't get very much time to spend on the internet.

As you have seen in my two quotes, the Muslims of that time (including Aisha!) believed that Aaron was Mary's literal sister. This was up until the time when an objection was raised by the Najran Christians. Aisha's reaction: "You have lied!" indicates that she was surprised and incredulous. Muslim apologists today insist that it was quite natural to take Surah 19:28 in a non-literal sense, as if using a well known and customary idiom. But the evidence that we can see indicates quite the opposite.
Reply

YusufNoor
07-22-2010, 02:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Please explain if my statement was incorrect.
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

i'm not sure i have the time to deal with all of your misconceptions, Sister Vales Lily is usually correct when she addresses these issues. you could actually deal with her, but your probably taken aback by her manner of posting. her manner of dealing with insincerity is to meet it head on, if you would like her to take a different approach, use some sincerity yourself.

you probably won't learn the Qur'an or Islam reading Pickthall. you will need multiple translations AND sincerity.

the Quran was delivered to a people of whom few could read or write, therefore the Qur'an doesn't contain dates and long genealogies like the Bible does. your comment ONLY reveals that Jafaar[i'm guessing] had an incorrect opinion on a matter, but Jafaar[RA] wasn't the Prophet. the same with Aisha[RA], she had a misconception, we don't hide those. they were humans, they were capable of error, so what? IF the section you are discussing WERE about genealogy, which it isn't, your misconception would have some merit. however the section of the Qur'an we are dealing with is about the miraculous birth and infancy of Jesus, PBUH and his mother Mary. AS A CHRISTIAN, you don't believe in the miraculous infancy, do you? odd....

FWIW here is what Muhammad Asad says in his commentary on 19:27.

"In ancient Semitic usage, a person's name was often linked with that of a renowned ancestor or founder of the tribal line. Thus, for instance, a man of the tribe of Banu Tamim was sometimes addressed as "son of Tamim'' or "brother of Tamim." Since Mary belonged to the priestly caste, and hence descended from Aaron, the brother of Moses, she was call a "sister of Aaron" (in the same way as her cousin Elisabeth, the wife of Zachariah, is spoken of in Luke i, 5 as "one of the daughters of Aaron").
Asads footnote is all that is needed here. IF we were to write ALL of the "misconceptions that the Sahabah[RA] or even just Aisha[RA] had, it would take alot of time and space.

i'll deal with the other Hadeeths later, In Sha'a Allah. perhaps you would like to enlighten us on this little ditty:

So the idea that Mary was some descendant of Aaron the high priest doesn't help. In fact, although Mary was Elisabeth's relative, her genealogy shows that she descended from Judah, not Levi, Aaron's tribe. In any case, if Aaron had been her ancestor then she would have been called his daughter, not his sister.
WHERE does the New Testament CLAIM to show Mary's geneology, PBUH?

Salaam
Reply

Insaanah
07-22-2010, 03:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Aisha's reaction: "You have lied!" indicates that she was surprised and incredulous. Muslim apologists today insist that it was quite natural to take Surah 19:28 in a non-literal sense, as if using a well known and customary idiom. But the evidence that we can see indicates quite the opposite.
Although though it may be well-known, Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) decided to take the verse literally, on the side of caution, until instructed otherwise.

Bizarrely some missionaries are also attempting to pad their claim by utlizing the understanding of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) concerning this issue as “evidence” for their claim.

Aisha’s understanding of the issue was only due to the fact that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) nor her fellow companions (students of Muhammad peace be upon him) had yet explained this issue to her. So Aisha took the verse literally (until instructed otherwise) as she had not yet heard of Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) explanation of it to be an idiom.

The fact is, in this reference, Ka’b confirms Muhammad (peace be upon him) had not said that Mary (peace be upon her) was the (literal) sister of Aaron is enough to pour cold water on critics baseless claims. Thus we further realise that the Quran is not claiming Mary (peace be upon her) to be the literal sister of the brother of Moses i.e. Aaron (peace be upon them both).

Moreover, this tradition also shows that Ka’b himself knew there was a huge difference of years between Mary (peace be upon her) and Aaron prior to Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) explanation.

In addition Aisha’s silence points to her acknowledgement of her taking it literally, her taking it literally was only due to the fact that at this instance Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) had not had the verse explained to her by the Prophet (peace be upon him) or any student of the Prophet but once the verse was explained to her by Ka’b (using the teachings of the Prophet she accepted the explanation and acknowledged it (inferred by her silence).

It is hardly scholarly to jump on one Muslim's (Aisha's) personal understanding of the verse before it is explained to them, and their subsequent acceptance of the explanation, and try to build a case of “Quranic error” based on this despite Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) explanation of the verse to be an idiom. Such is the desperation of some critics, sadly the critics who have gone to this length are the Christian missionaries. Hardly the most Christian or honest method of reason!
Reply

جوري
07-22-2010, 03:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Sorry if I don't always reply immediately. I don't get very much time to spend on the internet.

As you have seen in my two quotes, the Muslims of that time (including Aisha!) believed that Aaron was Mary's literal sister. This was up until the time when an objection was raised by the Najran Christians. Aisha's reaction: "You have lied!" indicates that she was surprised and incredulous. Muslim apologists today insist that it was quite natural to take Surah 19:28 in a non-literal sense, as if using a well known and customary idiom. But the evidence that we can see indicates quite the opposite.
I find you to be hanging on to strawmen with every subsequent post and that is fine and I can understand you want to milk it for all you can, however, what I dislike is totally ignoring all the material I have provided in the other suras with the lineage and sequence of events which like the ahadith that you yourself have posted completely invalidate everything you have written. I have asked you to show me where in Islamic literature, exegesis, the Quran or ahadith that Aaron is taken to be the literal brother of Mariam, not what folks have thought while the prophet was in their midst to correct but in accordance to your orientalists hopes, that we are all ignorant of that fact until one of you pointed out!

if you can't do that and it is obvious you won't, then there is no point wasting your time and ours, what do you think?

[Pickthal 3:7] He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

you are entitled to your beliefs, but don't come and teach Muslims about what their beliefs ought to be!

all the best
Reply

Rabi Mansur
07-23-2010, 01:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi

Most importantly, Mohammed's explanation in the Hadith stated, and please corect me if I am wrong, that Mary's brother was not Aaron the high priest, but a different man with the same name (and so named simply because high priest Aaron was a pious man). Btw, this still leaves unexplained how Mary's father also has the same name as Aaron's father and also how Mary happens to have the same name (in Arabic) as Aaron's sister.

So the idea that Mary was some descendant of Aaron the high priest doesn't help. In fact, although Mary was Elisabeth's relative, her genealogy shows that she descended from Judah, not Levi, Aaron's tribe. In any case, if Aaron had been her ancestor then she would have been called his daughter, not his sister.
:sl:
I think that Muhammad Asad's explanation is really quite sufficient. The others on this forum have also dealt with this issue very well, but I have to just add that Mary's (P) genealogy is not dealt with in the NT in my view. I know that you probably think that Luke 3 gives her genealogy but it doesn't. The Matthew and Luke accounts give both a legal father and biological father account for Joseph's genealogy that ties Jesus (P) with the seed of David and the throne of David. Nowhere does it state that Luke 3 is Mary's (P) genealogy.

See the following link in this regard:

http://biblestudies.suite101.com/art...ers_for_joseph

The fact that Elizabeth is of Aaron and Mary is her cousin is significant evidence of Aaronic lineage IMHO.
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-23-2010, 02:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
What I want to know is, as nonbelievers, how do you explain Muhammad, and the Quran? If you claim it to be his word, why is that? What motives were there? What about all the signs that point to his sincerity? I’m really interested in your responses, and my intention here really is to learn. I apologize in advance if this question has already been tackled in the past, and I hope my post was clear. :p
I would place Mohammad in the lineage of spiritual masters who discovered themselves and thereby discovered the ultimate truth or God. I would take his starting point in this quest for self-discovery as his meditations in the mountains of Hira. As he discovered his higher self, he started expressing it when he came out of his meditation. His subsequent meditations and expressions resulted in the Quran over a period of time. To say that the Quran is the word of God is not wrong at all because a man's higher consciousness and its expressions touch the ultimate truths of existence.
Reply

Lynx
07-23-2010, 06:05 AM
Hello
i think your question is similar to C.S Lewis' famous argument for why Jesus is who he says he is because if it wasn't then he'd either be a liar or a crazy person and he clearly wasn't either. ultimately i think we don't know enough about these particular individuals to give an accurate response. i mean there are hadith that talk about the miracles performed by the prophet such as creating water from his fingers (bukhari) so naturally I don't buy the entire collection of hadith (and i presume no non muslim would because taht would pretty much clinch the veracity of his claims!) but even if we grant that things happened roughly as Muslims think they did then I think there are always different possibilities. for example, it's quite possible that mohammad, being the great mind that he was, knew that religion would be a very useful tool in causing social upheaval. the same can be said about other religious figures so i think you are oversimplifying the psychology of these prophets...
Reply

Ramadhan
07-23-2010, 07:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
for example, it's quite possible that mohammad, being the great mind that he was, knew that religion would be a very useful tool in causing social upheaval. the same can be said about other religious figures so i think you are oversimplifying the psychology of these prophets...
It is your conjecture.
Would you like to back up your theory with some evidence and proof?
Maybe a little knowledge about the sirah would be suffice to help you.
Reply

Hiroshi
07-23-2010, 08:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan

Although though it may be well-known, Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) decided to take the verse literally, on the side of caution, until instructed otherwise.

Bizarrely some missionaries are also attempting to pad their claim by utlizing the understanding of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) concerning this issue as “evidence” for their claim.

Aisha’s understanding of the issue was only due to the fact that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) nor her fellow companions (students of Muhammad peace be upon him) had yet explained this issue to her. So Aisha took the verse literally (until instructed otherwise) as she had not yet heard of Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) explanation of it to be an idiom.

The fact is, in this reference, Ka’b confirms Muhammad (peace be upon him) had not said that Mary (peace be upon her) was the (literal) sister of Aaron is enough to pour cold water on critics baseless claims. Thus we further realise that the Quran is not claiming Mary (peace be upon her) to be the literal sister of the brother of Moses i.e. Aaron (peace be upon them both).

Moreover, this tradition also shows that Ka’b himself knew there was a huge difference of years between Mary (peace be upon her) and Aaron prior to Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) explanation.

In addition Aisha’s silence points to her acknowledgement of her taking it literally, her taking it literally was only due to the fact that at this instance Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) had not had the verse explained to her by the Prophet (peace be upon him) or any student of the Prophet but once the verse was explained to her by Ka’b (using the teachings of the Prophet she accepted the explanation and acknowledged it (inferred by her silence).

It is hardly scholarly to jump on one Muslim's (Aisha's) personal understanding of the verse before it is explained to them, and their subsequent acceptance of the explanation, and try to build a case of “Quranic error” based on this despite Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) explanation of the verse to be an idiom. Such is the desperation of some critics, sadly the critics who have gone to this length are the Christian missionaries. Hardly the most Christian or honest method of reason!
I was informed that Aisha was one of the most knowledgeable people of Islam so I am surprised with what you tell me here.


Al-Tabari narrated a hadith in his commentary:
الْقَوْل فِي تَأْوِيل قَوْله تَعَالَى : { يَا أُخْت هَارُون } اِخْتَلَفَ أَهْل التَّأْوِيل فِي السَّبَب الَّذِي مِنْ أَجْله قِيلَ لَهَا : يَا أُخْت هَارُون , وَمَنْ كَانَ هَارُون هَذَا الَّذِي ذَكَرَهُ اللَّه , حَدَّثَنَا اِبْن حُمَيْد , قَالَ : ثنا الْحَكَم بْن بَشِير , قَالَ : ثنا عَمْرو , عَنْ سِمَاك بْن حَرْب , عَنْ عَلْقَمَة بْن وَائِل , عَنْ الْمُغِيرَة بْن شُعْبَة , قَالَ : أَرْسَلَنِي النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي بَعْض حَوَائِجه إِلَى أَهْل نَجْرَان , فَقَالُوا : أَلَيْسَ نَبِيّك يَزْعُم أَنَّ هَارُون أَخُو مَرْيَم هُوَ أَخُو مُوسَى ؟ فَلَمْ أَدْرِ مَا أَرُدّ عَلَيْهِمْ حَتَّى رَجَعْت إِلَى النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , فَذَكَرْت لَهُ ذَلِكَ , فَقَالَ : " إِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا يُسَمُّونَ بِأَسْمَاءِ مَنْ كَانَ قَبْلهمْ " . وَقَالَ بَعْضهمْ : عَنَى بِهِ هَارُون أَخُو مُوسَى , وَنُسِبَتْ مَرْيَم إِلَى أَنَّهَا أُخْته لِأَنَّهَا مِنْ وَلَده , - حَدَّثَنَا مُوسَى , قَالَ : ثنا عَمْرو , قَالَ : ثنا أَسْبَاط , عَنْ السُّدِّيّ { يَا أُخْت هَارُون } قَالَ : كَانَتْ مِنْ بَنِي هَارُون أَخِي مُوسَى
The people of commentary and interpretation have differed on the reason why it was said "O sister of Harun!" (Of Sura 19:28), and who this Harun was that Allah mentioned…
It was narrated by Ibn Hamid, narrated by Al Hakam Ibn Bashir, narrated by Amr, narrated by Simak Ibn Harb, narrated by Alkama Ibn Wa’il, narrated Al Mughira Ibn Shu’ba who said, "The prophet, may Allah’s prayers be upon him, sent me to fetch some of his needs from the people of Najran who said, "Doesn't your prophet claim that Harun the brother of Mary is the brother of Moses?" I did not know how to respond to them until I returned to the prophet, may Allah’s prayers be upon him. I related to him all what was said and he replied, ‘They used to name themselves after the names of those who came before them.’"
Others said the Harun referred to is the brother of Moses, and Mariam was classified as his sister for she is a (descendent) of (his) son.
It was narrated by Musa, narrated by Amr, narrated by Asbat, narrated by Al Suddi who said regarding "O sister of Harun!" (Of Sura 19:28) that (Mariam) was a descendent of the tribe of Harun, the brother of Moses.
(From the Arabic commentary of Al-Tabari on Sura 19:28)


Now let me ask you: why did commentators differ as to the meaning of Surah 19:28 and as to who is meant by "Aaron" in that verse? Was this problem not resolved immediately? And also why did all of this debate and confusion not take place before the Christians of Najran blew the whistle, if Muslims then were quite settled as to the meaning of "sister of Aaron"?
Reply

Trumble
07-23-2010, 09:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
It is your conjecture.
Would you like to back up your theory with some evidence and proof?
For evidence of the claim that Mohammed "knew that religion would be a very useful tool in causing social upheaval" surely you have to look no further than the early history of Islam which is packed full of just such social upheaval! There is, of course, no 'proof' of any such link.. nevertheless in a historical context something being 'just' conjecture does not make it untrue or even particularly implausible.

Personally, I think this poster hits the nail on the head, though;

format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
I would place Mohammad in the lineage of spiritual masters who discovered themselves and thereby discovered the ultimate truth or God. I would take his starting point in this quest for self-discovery as his meditations in the mountains of Hira. As he discovered his higher self, he started expressing it when he came out of his meditation. His subsequent meditations and expressions resulted in the Quran over a period of time. To say that the Quran is the word of God is not wrong at all because a man's higher consciousness and its expressions touch the ultimate truths of existence.
Excellent! Of course, it is always very difficult in threads such as this - it was addressed to non-muslims who really find it impossible to reply without offending someone. If we were able to say what muslims would agree with on this topic, we would be muslims ourselves!
Reply

Ramadhan
07-23-2010, 09:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
For evidence of the claim that Mohammed "knew that religion would be a very useful tool in causing social upheaval" surely you have to look no further than the early history of Islam which is packed full of just such social upheaval! There is, of course, no 'proof' of any such link.. nevertheless in a historical context something being 'just' conjecture does not make it untrue or even particularly implausible.
I did not dispute the fact that there were HUGE social upheavals after prophet Muhammad SAW received the Qur'an.
you claimed that "prophet Muhammad KNEW that religion would be VERY USEFUL TOOL in causing social upheavals"

I am merely asking how do you know that the prophet KNEW that, because this is the first time I hear such allegation, so I asked you for evidence/proof.

Also, it can be implied in your statement that prophet SAW wanted to cause social upheaval. Want to back it up with some evidence?

Personally, I think this poster hits the nail on the head, though;

Excellent! Of course, it is always very difficult in threads such as this - it was addressed to non-muslims who really find it impossible to reply without offending someone. If we were able to say what muslims would agree with on this topic, we would be muslims ourselves!
It is very interesting to note that you agree with K.Venugopal's statement which essentially agrees in the existence of God, because I previously thought you did not believe in the existence of God.
It would be a very welcoming surprise if you indeed have changed your view about it.
Reply

جوري
07-23-2010, 09:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
. nevertheless in a historical context something being 'just' conjecture does not make it untrue or even particularly implausible.
We are not talking mythology, we are talking history.. you can either validate your points in a historically accurate manner or your dispensing with opinion and making up stories!

all the best
Reply

جوري
07-23-2010, 09:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
I was informed that Aisha was one of the most knowledgeable people of Islam so I am surprised with what you tell me here.
Aisha (ra) wasn't born knowledgeable, it was acquired, and she had an excellent memory hence she gave us a massive amount of ahadith .. but ahadith are sayings of the prophet not the knowledge of Aisha.. is there a reason you choose to ignore all the posts linked for your perusal to hammer in the same point that has been answered multiple times?

all the best
Reply

Trumble
07-23-2010, 12:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
I did not dispute the fact that there were HUGE social upheavals after prophet Muhammad SAW received the Qur'an.
you claimed that "prophet Muhammad KNEW that religion would be VERY USEFUL TOOL in causing social upheavals"
No I didn't. I just commented that Lynx's conjecture was supported to some extent by the occurence of such social upheavals. I stated specifically (and you quoted it!) that there is no proof of such a link. I assume you are confusing me with him. The 'motive', had there been one, is obvious I would have thought; the beneficial changes in society that such upheavals brought about.

It is very interesting to note that you agree with K.Venugopal's statement which essentially agrees in the existence of God, because I previously thought you did not believe in the existence of God.
It would be a very welcoming surprise if you indeed have changed your view about it.
I have not, but such a change of mind is not required to agree with K.Venugopal's statement, which was that ;

I would place Mohammad in the lineage of spiritual masters who discovered themselves and thereby discovered the ultimate truth or God.
I would, of course, place the Buddha in exactly the same lineage, although while he discovered and embodied 'ultimate truth' his much deeper understanding enabled him to dismiss any association of same with God or gods which are, of course, just as illusory as everything else we conceive. I don't expect you to agree with that, of course!!
Reply

Hiroshi
07-23-2010, 12:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


Aisha (ra) wasn't born knowledgeable, it was acquired, and she had an excellent memory hence she gave us a massive amount of ahadith .. but ahadith are sayings of the prophet not the knowledge of Aisha.. is there a reason you choose to ignore all the posts linked for your perusal to hammer in the same point that has been answered multiple times?

all the best
The honest truth is, I have very little time to devote to the discussion and I don't always have access to the internet. Also I suddenly have a lot of questions to reply to and these take time to research. Doing my best.
Reply

Hiroshi
07-23-2010, 12:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
Hiroshi,

I'm a little confused as to what you're trying to say here... The Islamic sources you've pointed out only say that the prophet knew and preached that the verse doesn't refer to the Aaron of Moses's time. Perhaps the companions misunderstood, which isn't that hard to believe since we seem to have people here on this board who don't understand the verse.. But the fact the Prophet himself corrected his companions and said one thing is enough to show that there was no mix up in the verse...
Fair enough. But he did not say that Mary was a descendent of Aaron as many have suggested.
Reply

Hiroshi
07-23-2010, 12:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Rabi Mansur
:sl:
I think that Muhammad Asad's explanation is really quite sufficient. The others on this forum have also dealt with this issue very well, but I have to just add that Mary's (P) genealogy is not dealt with in the NT in my view. I know that you probably think that Luke 3 gives her genealogy but it doesn't. The Matthew and Luke accounts give both a legal father and biological father account for Joseph's genealogy that ties Jesus (P) with the seed of David and the throne of David. Nowhere does it state that Luke 3 is Mary's (P) genealogy.

See the following link in this regard:

The fact that Elizabeth is of Aaron and Mary is her cousin is significant evidence of Aaronic lineage IMHO.
Your link cites the research of Dr. A. T. Robertson who proposed that Joseph had both a legal father and a biological father and that this is the reason for the variances in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. I will look into this. The article notes that Matthew is written from the point of view of Joseph and Luke from that of Mary. I would take this as an indication that, rather, Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, not Joseph.

M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774) says: “In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7).”

This is sufficient reason for Joseph to be called "son of Heli" at Luke 3:23 even if Heli was in fact the father of Mary.
Reply

Hiroshi
07-23-2010, 12:58 PM
Salaam, YusufNoor.
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

i'm not sure i have the time to deal with all of your misconceptions, Sister Vales Lily is usually correct when she addresses these issues. you could actually deal with her, but your probably taken aback by her manner of posting. her manner of dealing with insincerity is to meet it head on, if you would like her to take a different approach, use some sincerity yourself.
Not at all. I find her a most charming person to debate things with.
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
the section of the Qur'an we are dealing with is about the miraculous birth and infancy of Jesus, PBUH and his mother Mary. AS A CHRISTIAN, you don't believe in the miraculous infancy, do you? odd....
I believe that Jesus had no human father as the Qur'an agrees I think. But the accounts of newly born Jesus speaking as an infant and performing other miracles whilst still a child do not agree with the bible. John 2:11 states that Jesus performrd his first miracle when he was an adult.
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
i'll deal with the other Hadeeths later, In Sha'a Allah. perhaps you would like to enlighten us on this little ditty:

WHERE does the New Testament CLAIM to show Mary's geneology, PBUH?

Salaam
Please see my post number 50 on this thread. Also note that Hebrews 7:11-14 would exclude Mary from having any Levitical or Aaronic blood at all in her.
Reply

Insaanah
07-23-2010, 01:09 PM
One's desperation is becoming increasingly apparent! One who searches through hadeeths to find anything that may enable them (wrongly) to say the Qur'an contains an error, such a person cannot hope to succeed here. May I ask, what are your motives to be here exactly? Is it to point out to us supposed "errors" in the Qur'an (which quite frankly is a waste of your time), or, is it to learn about Islam? If you want to learn about Islam, we should start off with the basics and the main beliefs, such as the trinity vs the oneness of God.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
In Sahih Muslim, the Hadith related by Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, #5326, says:
"When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read "Sister of Harun", (i.e. Mary), in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born well before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger I asked him about that, and he said: "The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostle and pious persons who had gone before them.""


When this Muslim went to speak with the Christians of Najran he was under the impression that Mary was the actual sister of Aaron. And when the Christians objected he could not explain the problem.
Wordplay! It doesn't say anywhere that he was under that impression. All it says was that he came back and asked about their question. As to explaining "the problem", there wasn't one!

format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
I bought a copy of the Qur'an translated by Marmaduke Pickthall and found all the details in a foreword to Soorah 3 "Al-Imran".
That was good of you to find all the details there. Then you also found the second paragraph, which reads, and I quote: "If vv. 1 to 34 were, as tradition states, revealed on the occasion of the deputation from the Christians of Najran, which took place in the tenth year of the Hijrah ("the year of deputations," as it is called), then they are of much later date than the rest of the surah, but it seems possible that they were only recited by the Prophet on that occasion, having been revealed before."

The very source you have used has demolished your own argument (if it is even remotely worthy of being called one!)

format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Was this problem not resolved immediately? And also why did all of this debate and confusion not take place before the Christians of Najran blew the whistle
Lets go back to Pickthall's introduction to Surah 19 and see what he says. This is starting from the penultimate paragraph: "Then the Negus asked him: Hast with thee aught of that which he brought from Allah? Ja'far answered: Yes. Then the Negus said: Relate it to me, and Ja'far recited to him the beginning of Kaf, Ha, Ya, A'in, Sad" the Arabic letters with which this Surah begins, such letters being generally used instead of titles by the early Muslims."

He was a far more knowledgable Christian than any of nowadays; strange how he didn't raise an objection nor question it, and carrying the story from where Pickthall leaves it off, the Negus wept until his beard was wet, listening to the Qur'an. Then he said, "What you have just recited and that which was revealed to Moses must both have issued from the same source. Go forth into my kingdom; I shall not deport you at all." Thus the spiteful efforts of the pagans against the Muslims were doomed to failure once again.

That last sentence is really ringing true here and now as well!

Wordplay, dramatisation, creation of non-existent problems and non-existent confusion, blowing of whistles, what next? There was no problem, nor any "blowing of whistles". Those who weren't sure about a particular verse, asked about them. Unlike with other holy books, people did not try to render their own meanings to the verses, however common an expression might have been then, until it was thus explained to them by the Prophet (peace be upon him). Which is why the Qur'an is the only untampered with book in both it's word and its message and will remain so until the end of time.

Peace.
Reply

Hiroshi
07-23-2010, 03:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
One's desperation is becoming increasingly apparent! One who searches through hadeeths to find anything that may enable them (wrongly) to say the Qur'an contains an error, such a person cannot hope to succeed here. May I ask, what are your motives to be here exactly? Is it to point out to us supposed "errors" in the Qur'an (which quite frankly is a waste of your time), or, is it to learn about Islam?
My motive is to answer the question posed by this thread. And in just a short time I have learned a considerable number of new things, thanks to the knowledgeable people on this forum. I never knew before that the name "Jesus" was not in use until just 400 years ago.
format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
If you want to learn about Islam, we should start off with the basics and the main beliefs, such as the trinity vs the oneness of God.
The trinity doctrine is nonsense. I agree with that.
Reply

Hiroshi
07-23-2010, 03:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
That was good of you to find all the details there. Then you also found the second paragraph, which reads, and I quote: "If vv. 1 to 34 were, as tradition states, revealed on the occasion of the deputation from the Christians of Najran, which took place in the tenth year of the Hijrah ("the year of deputations," as it is called), then they are of much later date than the rest of the surah, but it seems possible that they were only recited by the Prophet on that occasion, having been revealed before."

The very source you have used has demolished your own argument (if it is even remotely worthy of being called one!)
Peace, my friend.

My thinking is a bit woolly right now. I can't see how this demolishes the argument. Please explain.
Reply

KAding
07-23-2010, 04:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Rabi Mansur
But I have to say, from my personal experience, there is a lot more evidence (actually a mountain of evidence) that reveals Joseph Smith was a fraud than anything I was able to find against Muhammad (pbuh). Most of the anti-Islamic sites aren't all that reputable IMHO and slant the evidence.
Keep in mind the social context though. It's been around 1400 years since Muhammad was among the living. 1400 years in which criticism directed towards him was essentially considered blashpemous and, consequently, illegal in Muslim-controlled areas. It is unclear how much of what we know about him now provides a fair and balanced picture of how he truly was.
Reply

جوري
07-23-2010, 04:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
Keep in mind the social context though. It's been around 1400 years since Muhammad was among the living. 1400 years in which criticism directed towards him was essentially considered blashpemous and, consequently, illegal in Muslim-controlled areas. It is unclear how much of what we know about him now provides a fair and balanced picture of how he truly was.
You can know of people through their work and the legacy they leave behind, certainly from Islam's very inception the venomous tirades against Islam, the messenger and Muslims in general has always existed, it isn't a new thing courtesy of a 'free west'

2:214 Or do ye think that ye shall enter the Garden (of Bliss) without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you? They encountered suffering and adversity, and were so shaken in spirit that even the Messenger and those of faith who were with him cried: "When (will come) the help of Allah" ah! verily, the help of Allah is (always) near!



as you can see from the up Quranic verse, that adversity has existed from the beginning and it existed for other messengers as well can be easily inferred from the same verse..


What I personally consider blasphemous is building an opinion based on personal persuasions and seething hatred rather than correct accurate historical facts.. and living in the west has taught me indeed that only scandals sell, the worse it is the higher the sell.. westerners so admire their opinion for what it is worth when it is in fact worthless and love to impose that sort of lowness on the world under some guise of inalienable rights... and it is no wonder to me that the population at large are zonked out on prozac and suffer anxiety and are very un-trusting and un-neighborly toward one another .. they've created that environment for themselves and continuously reap its 'benefits'


all the best
Reply

Lynx
07-23-2010, 06:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
It is your conjecture.
Would you like to back up your theory with some evidence and proof?
Maybe a little knowledge about the sirah would be suffice to help you.
I never claimed my suggestion was the 'right' explanation. I merely pointed out a possibility that reconciled the sincerity of the Prophet & the existence of the Quran which is what the OP was challenging non-Muslims to do. Obviously I don't have a letter of the Prophet where he said "today I am going to invent a religion cause I think i have good ideas for society" lol but this isn't the point of the OP. The mere *possibility* of my claim suffices! As for the claim of whether Prophet Muhammed knew religion would cause social upheaval..well I don't know; I think anyone who read or heard of any of the stories of the prophets before, would quickly realize how great of an influence religion can have!
Reply

Ramadhan
07-23-2010, 06:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
I never claimed my suggestion was the 'right' explanation. I merely pointed out a possibility that reconciled the sincerity of the Prophet & the existence of the Quran which is what the OP was challenging non-Muslims to do. Obviously I don't have a letter of the Prophet where he said "today I am going to invent a religion cause I think i have good ideas for society" lol but this isn't the point of the OP. The mere *possibility* of my claim suffices! As for the claim of whether Prophet Muhammed knew religion would cause social upheaval..well I don't know; I think anyone who read or heard of any of the stories of the prophets before, would quickly realize how great of an influence religion can have!
If this is the standard on which you operate (ie. making conjectures, offer explanations, etc), then I have nothing more to say.
Reply

Lynx
07-23-2010, 06:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
If this is the standard on which you operate (ie. making conjectures, offer explanations, etc), then I have nothing more to say.
the point of my post was to show there is at least one other possibility that takes into account that muhammed was sincere but at the same time he wasn't a prophet. In other words, i presented a motive for muhammed to make up Islam that keeps his sincerity intact. this is what the OP was asking for: an 'explanation' since the OP presumes that non muslims hold contradictory beliefs if they a) believe in the sincerity of the prophets charater and b) reject the message he brought. the explanation i offered reconciles the apparent contradiction in beliefs :) re-read the OP and try to imagine it as an argument; it makes things a lot clearer!
Reply

Tyrion
07-23-2010, 10:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
I never claimed my suggestion was the 'right' explanation. I merely pointed out a possibility that reconciled the sincerity of the Prophet & the existence of the Quran which is what the OP was challenging non-Muslims to do. Obviously I don't have a letter of the Prophet where he said "today I am going to invent a religion cause I think i have good ideas for society" lol but this isn't the point of the OP. The mere *possibility* of my claim suffices! As for the claim of whether Prophet Muhammed knew religion would cause social upheaval..well I don't know; I think anyone who read or heard of any of the stories of the prophets before, would quickly realize how great of an influence religion can have!
I honestly don’t think this is a possibility, because if those were his intentions then he would be a liar, and if he was a liar then he could no longer be considered sincere. We know he was sincere and therefore not a liar, so I don’t see how this would possibly reconcile anything, as you claim it does.
I think the sincerity of the Prophet is backed up by history (I know you might argue about the validity of Islamic history, but I’ll let someone more qualified deal with that.) and most people (Muslim and non Muslims alike) seem to agree on this point. It seems very unlikely that he would deceive his people to that extent…

On a side note, I want to express my thanks to everyone who has replied to this thread so far. I’m learning quite a bit, so please keep the comments coming. 
Reply

Tyrion
07-23-2010, 10:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PouringRain


As for me personally, I believe Mohammed was a prophet of God, sent to bring the people back to him, and the qur'an is given by inspiration from God.
I'm curious as to how someone who accepts the Prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) could still remain a Christian?
Reply

M.I.A.
07-23-2010, 11:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
I'm curious as to how someone who accepts the Prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) could still remain a Christian?

if thats what pouringrain believes then i guess that belief would somehow show itself in christian circles, it must be hard to let go of any teaching if it has made you into a well grounded individual, especially one that has a wide enough field of vision to aknowlage the quran and the prophethood of muhammed peace and blessings be upon him.
Reply

PouringRain
07-24-2010, 04:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
if thats what pouringrain believes then i guess that belief would somehow show itself in christian circles, it must be hard to let go of any teaching if it has made you into a well grounded individual, especially one that has a wide enough field of vision to aknowlage the quran and the prophethood of muhammed peace and blessings be upon him.
I get in more disagreements with Christians than I do with Muslims. :embarrass

In general, my beliefs do not fall within mainstream Christianity. I am a Christian, because I am a follower of Christ and his teachings.

And that is the short answer to the questions. :) Okay, back to the thread. I am going to be off topic again today. :nervous: :giggling:
Reply

Lynx
07-24-2010, 05:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
I honestly don’t think this is a possibility, because if those were his intentions then he would be a liar, and if he was a liar then he could no longer be considered sincere. We know he was sincere and therefore not a liar, so I don’t see how this would possibly reconcile anything, as you claim it does.
I think the sincerity of the Prophet is backed up by history (I know you might argue about the validity of Islamic history, but I’ll let someone more qualified deal with that.) and most people (Muslim and non Muslims alike) seem to agree on this point. It seems very unlikely that he would deceive his people to that extent…

On a side note, I want to express my thanks to everyone who has replied to this thread so far. I’m learning quite a bit, so please keep the comments coming. 
Well first of all it's ridiculous to think a sincere person would never tell a lie. Second, I think he can still be sinceere if he thought the end justifies the means. Morality is complicated and a man who creates a religion is bound to have a complicated set of moral standards. Maybe he thought "this is good for everyone so a deception here would not make me a bad person".

I mean that is just one possibility. It's possible he was crazy too. Not all crazy people are self-destructive. Point is there are lots of possibilities and murky historical data. Your OP is assuming quite a bit.
Reply

Tyrion
07-24-2010, 05:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Well first of all it's ridiculous to think a sincere person would never tell a lie. Second, I think he can still be sinceere if he thought the end justifies the means. Morality is complicated and a man who creates a religion is bound to have a complicated set of moral standards. Maybe he thought "this is good for everyone so a deception here would not make me a bad person".

I mean that is just one possibility. It's possible he was crazy too. Not all crazy people are self-destructive. Point is there are lots of possibilities and murky historical data. Your OP is assuming quite a bit.

sincerity
- 3 dictionary results
sin·cer·i·ty
   /sɪnˈsɛrɪti/ Show Spelled[sin-ser-i-tee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.
freedom from deceit, hypocrisy, or duplicity; probity in intention or in communicating; earnestness.

Sincerity actually does mean some degree of honesty, and by your theory Muhammad wouldn't have just been a liar, but one of the biggest deceivers known to man... Most agree that he was not and could not have been a liar, and I feel that a brief study of the Quran and his history would show that he couldn't possibly have been the kind of man you're describing. Someone who knows more about Islamic history can give you details, but I really feel like you should rethink this idea...
Reply

Lynx
07-24-2010, 06:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
sincerity
- 3 dictionary results
sin·cer·i·ty
   /sɪnˈsɛrɪti/ Show Spelled[sin-ser-i-tee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.
freedom from deceit, hypocrisy, or duplicity; probity in intention or in communicating; earnestness.

Sincerity actually does mean some degree of honesty, and by your theory Muhammad wouldn't have just been a liar, but one of the biggest deceivers known to man... Most agree that he was not and could not have been a liar, and I feel that a brief study of the Quran and his history would show that he couldn't possibly have been the kind of man you're describing. Someone who knows more about Islamic history can give you details, but I really feel like you should rethink this idea...
We don't know enough about his intentions and his own inner thoughts to assess what his 'motive' was if he made up Islam. But I don't think you can just say all his claims are true just because he had an upstanding character! It might be out of his strong character that he decided to make Islam up in order to bring out the best of his fellow Arabs. Are you saying it's impossible that he could be a person who rarely lies but decided that in this instance, the benefits outweigh the moral cost? Maybe he sincerely wanted to help his fellow man?

And as I mentioned, another possibility was that he was just plain old crazy. I don't think he was but that would reconcile the existence of Islam & his sincerity. Maybe he was a man with great ideas and those ideas manifested themselves in powerful hallucinations. I don't know; my point is there are so many other possibilities besides 'well I guess he was telling the truth and therefore Islam is right'. Religious prophets almost always face persecution when they bring forth a new religion...why do they all do it? Are they all telling the truth? It's more complicated than that, no?
Reply

Tyrion
07-24-2010, 07:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx

And as I mentioned, another possibility was that he was just plain old crazy. I don't think he was but that would reconcile the existence of Islam & his sincerity.
Of course there are other possibilities... You can say there are possibilities for anything, but that doesn't mean they're likely. You said yourself that you don't think he was crazy. Most people don't, and most people don't think he was a liar. Historically, it just doesn't make sense as well, but I'll leave the history for someone else to tackle. But yeah, you acknowledge that it's not likely, so why say it in the first place? After a while, it just starts to seem like you're trying really hard to come up with a reason to doubt him, even when a likely one doesn't really exist.
Reply

Hiroshi
07-24-2010, 07:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
One's desperation is becoming increasingly apparent! One who searches through hadeeths to find anything that may enable them (wrongly) to say the Qur'an contains an error, such a person cannot hope to succeed here. May I ask, what are your motives to be here exactly? Is it to point out to us supposed "errors" in the Qur'an (which quite frankly is a waste of your time), or, is it to learn about Islam?
I think that everyone here on Islamic Board has been very patient and good natured towards me as a newcomer with all of the objections that I have raised. I want to say just one more thing on this if I may.

Pickthall's foreword to Surah 3 says: "Ali 'Imran takes its title from v.32 where "the family of 'Imran" (the father of Moses) occurs as a generic name for all the Hebrew prophets from Moses to John the Baptist and JUesus Christ. This, with the mention of the mother of Mary as "the wife of 'Imran" (v.34) ..."

And Dawood has a footnote to verse 32: "Amram, the father of Moses and Aaron (Exodus xi, 20)." And then his footnote to verse 34 reads: "'Imran is also the name given in the Koran to Mary's father."

So both of these translators comment that the 'Imran in verse 32 is a completely different man (and separated by 1,500 years of time!) to the 'Imran in verse 34.

Now this is hard for a non-Muslim like me to accept. The surah introduces us to 'Imran in verse 32 -- and then two verses later the name occurs again speaking of someone else. At least there should be a brief explanation for the casual reader who would naturally understand the narrative to mean the same individual in both verses.

Any comments?
Reply

Salahudeen
07-24-2010, 08:57 AM
I think the proof he was a prophet is the fact that God all ways sends his prophets with miracles, this was the way to recognise a prophet from a mad man. Before the prophet Muhammed (saw) God would also send his prophets with miracles so that they could be recognised. Miracles can only occur at the hands of a prophet. The proofs for this are many, firstly the fact that God all ways sends his prophets with miracles, never does God send a prophet except that he has miracles, why?

Because before the advent of the prophet Muahmmed when prophets would be coming, how could you tell the difference between an imposter and a real prophet? one of the ways was through miracles, the imposter could not bring forth miracles yet the prophets would all ways bring forth miracles. So we know all of the prophets were given various miracles and we know some of these miracles, for example the miracles of Jesus involved curing people, healing the sick, the blind and leaper, resurrecting the dead person with the permission of God, creating a bird out of clay blowing into it and it becomes a real bird.

The miracles of Moses, of them was the staff, of them was the shining light with his hand, of them was the parting of the Nile and so on.

The Miracles of Abraham, to be thrown into a fire and not to be scorched or harmed by that fire and other miracles as well.

So these are miracles, all prophets have been given miracles therefore our prophet is not an exception, he too has been giving miracles. The Qur'an mentions, that the prophet has been given many miracles for example "The time for the day of judgement has come close and the moon has split" this is one miracle he was given, during his lifetime the moon split in halve. And the polytheists could see it split in halve. Likewise they could hear the rocks in the prophets hands saying "Subhanallah, Walhamdulilah" they could also see water come from his hands when they were short of water, he would put his hands out and the water would start coming out of his hands and they'd do wudu from that water and drink from it. Miracles taking place before their eyes, many miracles.

But there is one miracle that stands out from the rest and that is the Qur'an, the Qur'an is a linguistic miracle the arabs would call the prophet pbuh a magician and that's how he was able to produce such miracles. God says in the Qur'an addressing the polytheists challenging them as follows "if you are in doubt as to what we have revealed to our servant then produce a chapter like it"

"they say he has forged it then let them bring one surah like it"

this was a challenge to the polythiests at the time and the challenge stands today, no one has been able to produce anything like the miracle of the Qur'an. All some body has to do to prove the Qur'an isn't from God is produce a surah like it and people have tried but no one has been able to do so.
Reply

Insaanah
07-24-2010, 09:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Now this is hard for a non-Muslim like me to accept. The surah introduces us to 'Imran in verse 32 -- and then two verses later the name occurs again speaking of someone else. At least there should be a brief explanation for the casual reader who would naturally understand the narrative to mean the same individual in both verses.

Any comments?
The Arabic word used in verse 35, imra'atu, can mean woman or wife. If it is meant as wife, then obviously this is a different Imraan from that mentioned in verse 33. In that case, one comes to the conclusion that the father of Mary (peace be upon her) was named Imraan after that ancestor, hence a link. But, if the word imra'atu is translated as woman, i.e. a woman from the family of Imraan, then it merely shows that Mary's mother was a descendent of Imraan. We possess no authentic knowledge on the basis of which one opinion may be preferred over another. Both explanations are equally acceptable. Moreover, it makes no difference whatosever in the line of argument adopted here to explain the miraculous birth of Jesus (peace be upon him), whether Imraan was the really the name of Mary's father or has been used so in the ancestral sense.

As for an explanation for the casual reader, if the casual reader has read from the beginning of the Surah, they will also have read:

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

[Pickthal 3:7] He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.
Peace.
Reply

Hiroshi
07-24-2010, 12:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
The Arabic word used in verse 35, imra'atu, can mean woman or wife. If it is meant as wife, then obviously this is a different Imraan from that mentioned in verse 33. In that case, one comes to the conclusion that the father of Mary (peace be upon her) was named Imraan after that ancestor, hence a link. But, if the word imra'atu is translated as woman, i.e. a woman from the family of Imraan, then it merely shows that Mary's mother was a descendent of Imraan.
Muslim apologists appeal to the Bible to argue that because Mary's relative was "a daughter of Aaron" (Luke 1:5) then Mary herself must also have been descended from Aaron. But this doesn't necessarily follow.

Far more definite and conclusive scriptures show that Mary and Jesus had no Aaronic or Levitical ancestry at all (Hebrews 7:11-14).
Reply

Insaanah
07-24-2010, 12:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Muslim apologists appeal to the Bible
Certainly I have nothing to apologise for the Qur'an, Allah's word, containing no mistakes and unadulterated by the pen of man, and I have no need to go to the Bible to confirm something, when we have 100% Allah's word with us.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
The Qur'an came as our last hope and for the final time revealed the message along with restoring what has been lost and this time in a form for all people. It certainly contains the truth of what was revealed in the past, so if something true is still retained in what remains of the old books, we should be able to find the same in the Qur'an. Which we do.
Thus the Qur'an comes confirming those bits of the original revelations that may still remain in the earlier scriptures, rather than the other way around.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
to argue that because Mary's relative was "a daughter of Aaron" (Luke 1:5) then Mary herself must also have been descended from Aaron. But this doesn't necessarily follow.
It equally can follow, but I have no need to worry about that, because of what I stated in my post above.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Far more definite and conclusive scriptures show that Mary and Jesus had no Aaronic or Levitical ancestry at all (Hebrews 7:11-14).
The Qur'an is the most definite and conclusive scripture of all - it's message to mankind and it's words are fully preserved. The ancestry of Mary (peace be upon her) would have been in the text of the Qur'an if it was necessary for us to practise our faith properly, but it isn't. Allah, Glorified and Exalted be He, told us what He deemed necessary. And He is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

Peace.
Reply

YusufNoor
07-24-2010, 01:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Muslim apologists appeal to the Bible to argue that because Mary's relative was "a daughter of Aaron" (Luke 1:5) then Mary herself must also have been descended from Aaron. But this doesn't necessarily follow.

Far more definite and conclusive scriptures show that Mary and Jesus had no Aaronic or Levitical ancestry at all (Hebrews 7:11-14).
the OP should watch this guy carefully to learn how Shaytan leads human beings around. this cat here, Hiroshi, claims that he only has Pickthall translation of the Qur'an and yet he quotes from ibn Kathir and at-Tabari! gee, i wonder what website he is using....

allegedly, Hiroshi claims that because a few Sahabah had a misunderstanding about the Qur'an that, and a ayat that is amazing similar to one is his bible, that to him, proves something is false. so, because he doesn't understand something, to him it is proof that it is false.

well, he has offered "proofs" of his book, shall we look at them? let's start with this:

So the idea that Mary was some descendant of Aaron the high priest doesn't help. In fact, although Mary was Elisabeth's relative, her genealogy shows that she descended from Judah, not Levi, Aaron's tribe. In any case, if Aaron had been her ancestor then she would have been called his daughter, not his sister.
when asked whether on not the bible shows Mary's genealogy, he writes:

Your link cites the research of Dr. A. T. Robertson who proposed that Joseph had both a legal father and a biological father and that this is the reason for the variances in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. I will look into this. The article notes that Matthew is written from the point of view of Joseph and Luke from that of Mary. I would take this as an indication that, rather, Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, not Joseph.

M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774) says: “In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7).”

This is sufficient reason for Joseph to be called "son of Heli" at Luke 3:23 even if Heli was in fact the father of Mary
here, Hiroshi is playing a shell game, unless he is claiming that Dr Robertson is the author of Luke because Luke CLEARLY states that his genealogy is that of Joseph and NOT Mary. so i guess when reading the bible you have to know which words or names to substitute whenever you know there is an error. well, let's look at Luke anyway:

Luke 1
Introduction
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
the author of Luke [and we really don't know WHO wrote it] claims that he has carefully checked his facts because if you read other versions of this story you might NOT know the facts with certainty, but here you will. he doesn't say that if you replace certain words you might gain an understanding, does he?

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
according to Hiroshi logic, maybe Joseph and Mary are brother and sister because they couldn't have fathers with the same name! but, of course the verse clearly states that Joseph is the son of Heli.

we can learn other things from Luke as well, in John 3:16 we read:

John 3:16 (New International Version)

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
do you know what Luke tells us about this? let's finish up the genealogy shall we:

35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.
well, Luke dispells the myth of the Jesus being a preexist-ant god by showing that the author himself believed Jesus to be Adam, somehow returned! aren't we glad Hiroshi pointed this out for us?

Far more definite and conclusive scriptures show that Mary and Jesus had no Aaronic or Levitical ancestry at all (Hebrews 7:11-14).
let's talk about Hebrews, ask Hiroshi who wrote it! no one knows who wrote it! at the least it is doubtful that ANY Pharisee wrote it, do you know why? this one is one of the proofs against the New Testament being divinely inspired, for how could the Jews KNOW who Melchizedek is, but not God, or the holy spirit, or whichever part of the christian god is responsible for inspiring people [a wee bit confusing, isn't it]?

actually, i'll let the suspense build on this one a bit and ask Hiroshi:

Hiroshi, who is the author of Hebrews?

Salaam
Reply

glo
07-24-2010, 02:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
I'm curious as to how someone who accepts the Prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) could still remain a Christian?
Seems there are Christians who have no problem calling Muhammad a messenger/prophet from God.

Our Vicar (clergy in the Church of England) mentioned only a few weeks back that he had had one of his regular meetings with the local Imam, and that he (the Vicar) had told the Imam that he would be happy to confirm that there was only one God and that Muhammad was his messenger/prophet ... but that didn't make him a Muslim by any means!

I remember being surprised that the Vicar would consider Muhammad a messenger from God (I don't think I could myself), and I wondered what he considered a 'messenger or prophet from God' to be.

Sometimes people use the same terminology, but actually mean different things by it.
Next time I have some time to talk to the Vicar, I will ask him further about this.
Reply

Salahudeen
07-24-2010, 03:45 PM
I don't get why people have a hard time accepting him as a prophet when his call was the same call of the previous prophets, it's not as if he came with anything new. His call was to worship God alone without any partners just like Moses, Abraham, Noah, is that really such a bad call? I'd understand if he was calling to something new and strange but he's not. He is calling to what the prophets of God all ways call to, and that is the worship of God alone without partners.

This is nothing strange, all the other prophets also did this.
Reply

جوري
07-24-2010, 04:41 PM
the problem is that they'd have to consider their own beliefs from outside and it might cause them a paradigm shift and that is sure to take them out of their comfort zone.

2:170 When it is said to them: "Follow what Allah hath revealed:" they say: "Nay! we shall follow the ways of our fathers:" what! even though their fathers were void of wisdom and guidance!


:w:

p.s . Bro. Yusuf another brilliant post, sure to be ignored, because there is nothing quite like a crisp clear slap you in the face facts from the books they use!
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-24-2010, 05:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
It is very interesting to note that you agree with K.Venugopal's statement which essentially agrees in the existence of God, because I previously thought you did not believe in the existence of God.
Islam teaches the Creator-Creation dichotomy and calls the creator God. There are teachings in the Dharmic religions that do not see such a dichotomy and recognize the oneness of existence - call it Brahman (totality) or shunya (nothingness) or jeeva (life).
Reply

جوري
07-24-2010, 05:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Islam teaches the Creator-Creation dichotomy and calls the creator God. There are teachings in the Dharmic religions that do not see such a dichotomy and recognize the oneness of existence - call it Brahman (totality) or shunya (nothingness) or jeeva (life).
'oneness of existence' leaves many questions un-answered in a sense one would be better off as an atheist since they don't have to stretch their imagination to accommodate the gang:



Annapurna


Balrama


Bhuvaneshwari


Brahma


Buddha


Dhanwantari


Dhumavati


Durga


Ganga



Ganesha


Garuda


Hanuman


Indra


Kali


Kartikay


Krishna


Kurma


Lakshmi


Matangi


Maya


Ram


Saraswati


Shakti


Shiva


Sita


Vamana


Vishnu




all the best
Reply

جوري
07-24-2010, 05:45 PM
by the way as an addendum, why the caste system if all is one?

all the best
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-24-2010, 05:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
[B]

'oneness of existence' leaves many questions un-answered in a sense one would be better off as an atheist since they don't have to stretch their imagination to accommodate the gang:
Oneness of existence does not foreclose its expression variously. Hasn't the one Allah many names?
Reply

Lynx
07-24-2010, 06:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
Of course there are other possibilities... You can say there are possibilities for anything, but that doesn't mean they're likely. You said yourself that you don't think he was crazy. Most people don't, and most people don't think he was a liar. Historically, it just doesn't make sense as well, but I'll leave the history for someone else to tackle. But yeah, you acknowledge that it's not likely, so why say it in the first place? After a while, it just starts to seem like you're trying really hard to come up with a reason to doubt him, even when a likely one doesn't really exist.
Well my point is that we don't know enough about the mind of Muhammed to go either way. Maybe he was making it up to save his society from whatever he thought was wrong with it; maybe he was crazy; maybe he was really a prophet? If someone told you they have an angel telling them to do things and giving him messages wouldn't you think he was crazy ? ;\ So I don't think historically we are able to say one is more likely than the other; it's just that the time period Muhammed lived in was a period of gullibility where people believed anything...To sum, I need more than just his claim that he was a prophet BECAUSE of all these possibilities. I don't think they are too much of a stretch especially the first one I presented :).
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-24-2010, 06:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
by the way as an addendum, why the caste system if all is one?
Castes are connected to professions and have nothing to do with spiritual attainments.
Reply

جوري
07-24-2010, 06:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Oneness of existence does not foreclose its expression variously.
What does that mean, I fear I am not much into semantics..

Hasn't the one Allah many names?
Said names are the attributes of Allah..
the generous, the forgiving, the patient, the originator, the creator, The Beneficent, The Just, the pardoner, the indivisible, the most high, the knowing, the mighty, the incomparable, the everlasting, the source of goodness, the all seeing, the expander, the sufficient, the guide, the preserver, the judge, the wise, the forbearing,the sublime one etc. etc. etc. .. those names don't split God into mini gods rather they exhibit some of what God is and what belongs to God..

all the best
Reply

جوري
07-24-2010, 06:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Castes are connected to professions and have nothing to do with spiritual attainments.
really? can low castes attain enlightenment in this life and be masters of Bahamians?
Reply

جوري
07-24-2010, 06:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
If someone told you they have an angel telling them to do things and giving him messages wouldn't you think he was crazy ? ;\.
I would have to look at the message to determine that!
certainly enlightenment of the prophet in the cave could explain the ahadith, but they wouldn't explain the Quran's supernatural eloquence!

all the best
Reply

Predator
07-24-2010, 06:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


really? can low castes attain enlightenment in this life and be masters of Bahamians?
Their Scripture says they cant


PUNISHMENT FOR LOW CASTE HINDUS

Apastambha Dharma Sutra III, 10-26, says:
The tongue of a Shudra, who spoke evil about a BRAHMIN should be cut off

A Shudra who dared to assume a position of equality with the first three castes was to be flogged.

If a Shudra overheard a recitation of the Vedas, molten tin was to be poured into his ears; if he repeated the Vedas his tongue should be cut and if he remembered Vedic hymns, his body was to be torn into pieces.
MANU, 167-272 says:
If a Shudra arrogantly teaches Brahmins Dharma, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and ears.
Again, MANU, 167-272 says:

Let the king never slay even a Brahmin though he may have committed all possible crimes.


MANU VII, 133 says that:
Brahmins should not be taxed and should be maintained by the State.”
ABOUT LOW CASTE Shudras – MANU XMRITI X, 129 says that:
No collection of wealth was to be made by a Shudra, even though he may be capable, for a Shudra who has acquired wealth would pain a Brahmin, and that Brahmins may appropriate by force the property of the Shudra.
PANCHVANISH BRAHMIN 3-1/1 I says:
Even if a Shudra acquired wealth, he must always remain a slave. His main job is to wash the feet of the higher caste.
TULSIDAS, A Brahmin in his Ramayana writes:
Even if a Shudra is learned and virtuous, he should not be given respect and honor.
Literacy the Peoples right

Here is the aphorism of the Brahma-Sutras:(Brahma-Sutras 1.3.9.38)

The smrithi orders that shudras must be prohibited from hearing, studying and understanding the Vedas.

MANU 162-272 says:
If a Shudra arrogantly teaches Brahmins, Dharma, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and ears.



Reply

جوري
07-24-2010, 06:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Airforce
Their Scripture says they cant


PUNISHMENT FOR LOW CASTE HINDUS

I know, I just wanted to see if he'd be forthcoming about that!

:w:
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-24-2010, 06:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
What does that mean, I fear I am not much into semantics.. Said names are the attributes of Allah..
the generous, the forgiving, the patient, the originator, the creator, The Beneficent, The Just, the pardoner, the indivisible, the most high, the knowing, the mighty, the incomparable, the everlasting, the source of goodness, the all seeing, the expander, the sufficient, the guide, the preserver, the judge, the wise, the forbearing,the sublime one etc. etc. etc. .. those names don't split God into mini gods rather they exhibit some of what God is and what belongs to God..
You say the many names of the one Allah are the attributes of Allah and doesn’t thereby split Allah. Just as the facets of a diamond does not split the diamond, the many expressions of the oneness of existence does not split existence. The oneness remains.
Reply

جوري
07-24-2010, 06:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
You say the many names of the one Allah are the attributes of Allah and doesn’t thereby split Allah. Just as the facets of a diamond does not split the diamond, the many expressions of the oneness of existence does not split existence. The oneness remains.
we are not discussing Islam, we are discussing your beliefs, what you say of oneness of existence doesn't reconcile the many gods, nor does it reconcile with a caste system and generally doesn't explain the variety of life nor its origins!

all the best
Reply

Hiroshi
07-24-2010, 06:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
Hiroshi, who is the author of Hebrews?

Salaam
God inspired the book of Hebrews but it was written by Paul. The writer does not identify himself by name but it was accepted as an epistle of Paul by early writers. The Chester Beatty Papyrus No.2 (of about 200 CE) contains Hebrews among nine of Paul's letters. And Hebrews is listed among "fourteen letters of Paul the apostle" in "The Canon of Athanasius", of the 4th century. Internal evidence also strongly points to Paul as the writer.
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-24-2010, 06:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
really? can low castes attain enlightenment in this life and be masters of Bahamians?
Yes, dear. As a matter of fact, some of the most attained Hindus have been born of the so-called low castes. Beginning with none the less than the complier of the Vedas itself. Somewhere down the line the caste system degenerated into a holier-than-thou caste hierarchy. But even at its worse, there was nothing like ethnic cleansing as witnessed in some other religious cultures. Today caste system is not of any consequence in Hindu society, except in some pockets and they are being thoroughly exposed and are on their way out.
Reply

Lynx
07-24-2010, 06:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


I would have to look at the message to determine that!
certainly enlightenment of the prophet in the cave could explain the ahadith, but they wouldn't explain the Quran's supernatural eloquence!

all the best
that's exactly my point. there's more to accepting someone's message besides their word for it !
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-24-2010, 07:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
we are not discussing Islam, we are discussing your beliefs, what you say of oneness of existence doesn't reconcile the many gods, nor does it reconcile with a caste system and generally doesn't explain the variety of life nor its origins!
I do not look at my religion as a believe or faith. I may say that my religion is Advaita (non-duality) and is one of the many religions extant in Hinduism, which could more rightly be called a civilizational culture. Be it as it may, for me religion is not a thing that requires believe or faith. Religion is a teaching that exposes us to our higher possibilities and the teachings may contain techniques or indications for attaining to those higher possibilities. Why need believe or faith come in? The understanding of the oneness of existence would cause one to lift oneself above the problems of the dualistic civilization and would enable one to be a cause of harmony rather than disharmony.
Reply

جوري
07-24-2010, 07:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Yes, dear. As a matter of fact, some of the most attained Hindus have been born of the so-called low castes. Beginning with none the less than the complier of the Vedas itself. Somewhere down the line the caste system degenerated into a holier-than-thou caste hierarchy. But even at its worse, there was nothing like ethnic cleansing as witnessed in some other religious cultures. Today caste system is not of any consequence in Hindu society, except in some pockets and they are being thoroughly exposed and are on their way out.
according to your philosophy or religion book or however you choose to view them on the previous page that doesn't appear to be the case, we're not discussing other religion or cultures we're discussing yours, at least since you've injected some of it in here has since made it the focus..

format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
that's exactly my point. there's more to accepting someone's message besides their word for it !
Indeed in Islam we're asked to question, reflect and seek knowledge .. very difficult to become of age and reason and simply take things at word value!

format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
I do not look at my religion as a believe or faith. I may say that my religion is Advaita (non-duality) and is one of the many religions extant in Hinduism, which could more rightly be called a civilizational culture. Be it as it may, for me religion is not a thing that requires believe or faith. Religion is a teaching that exposes us to our higher possibilities and the teachings may contain techniques or indications for attaining to those higher possibilities. Why need believe or faith come in? The understanding of the oneness of existence would cause one to lift oneself above the problems of the dualistic civilization and would enable one to be a cause of harmony rather than disharmony.
ok.. and good luck with all of that!
Reply

Hiroshi
07-24-2010, 10:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
here, Hiroshi is playing a shell game, unless he is claiming that Dr Robertson is the author of Luke because Luke CLEARLY states that his genealogy is that of Joseph and NOT Mary. so i guess when reading the bible you have to know which words or names to substitute whenever you know there is an error. well, let's look at Luke anyway:
This is the last post that I will make on this discussion in view of the signs that a few people are getting quite annoyed over it.

Yes, Luke 3:23 calls Joseph the son of Heli. But also Luke 3:27 calls Shealtiel the son of Neri and he clearly wasn't. Shealtiel was rather the son of Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:17; Matthew 1:12). However Shealtiel evidently married the daughter of Neri and so became his son-in-law. According to Jewish custom the genealogy would then record his name as if he were Neri's son. There is therefore no problem with taking Luke 3:23 to mean that Joseph was Heli's son-in-law even though it says that he was Heli's son.

We can be sure that the genealogies recorded by both Luke and Matthew were correct and in agreement with the public records. The enemies of Christianity would quickly have seized the opportunity to make an accusation if this were not so. But there is no record of them ever doing so.
Reply

YusufNoor
07-24-2010, 10:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
This is the last post that I will make on this discussion in view of the signs that a few people are getting quite annoyed over it.

Yes, Luke 3:23 calls Joseph the son of Heli. But also Luke 3:27 calls Shealtiel the son of Neri and he clearly wasn't. Shealtiel was rather the son of Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:17; Matthew 1:12). However Shealtiel evidently married the daughter of Neri and so became his son-in-law. According to Jewish custom the genealogy would then record his name as if he were Neri's son. There is therefore no problem with taking Luke 3:23 to mean that Joseph was Heli's son-in-law even though it says that he was Heli's son.

We can be sure that the genealogies recorded by both Luke and Matthew were correct and in agreement with the public records. The enemies of Christianity would quickly have seized the opportunity to make an accusation if this were not so. But there is no record of them ever doing so.
no one is getting angry at your lack of knowledge, you simply say things that aren't what they say let's look on your quote on the authorship of Hebrew:

God inspired the book of Hebrews but it was written by Paul. The writer does not identify himself by name but it was accepted as an epistle of Paul by early writers. The Chester Beatty Papyrus No.2 (of about 200 CE) contains Hebrews among nine of Paul's letters. And Hebrews is listed among "fourteen letters of Paul the apostle" in "The Canon of Athanasius", of the 4th century. Internal evidence also strongly points to Paul as the writer.
in this list of canons:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon3.html

Hebrews is listed as missing or "in doubt" in the earliest lists.

now, i have done a little research for you:

While there are a few remaining biblical scholars who attribute Hebrews to Paul the majority of scholars admit that they don't know who wrote Hebrews. The majority of those who still claim Pauline authorship are evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. Let's look at some of those who disagree, shall we.

In The Oxford Companion to the Bible edited by Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, Metzger being one of the leading biblical scholars of his time, we read:

The identity of the author of Hebrews is not known. Collisions and Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians attest to the authoritative status of Hebrews before the end of the first century. Presumably Clement knew who the author was. Later on, however, questions regarding the authorship of the letter contributed to the general neglect it suffered in the Western or Latin Christianity. Jerome's acceptance of the work as coming from the pen of Paul, and in particular the title "The Epistol of Paul to the Hebrews" in the Vulgate, was mainly responsible for the belief, unquestioned for more than 1000 years, in its Pauline authorship. But there are adequate reasons for rejecting Pauline authorship. First, the writer's style is different from Paul's; second, the issue seems to be settled by his affectation that (he together, apparently, with his readers) received the gospel from those who heard the Lord [2.3]

Of many conjectures that have been offered, there are but two that merit serious consideration. The author was clearly a person in a position of leadership in the Apostolic Church, intellectually distinguished, theologically mature, and with a profound knowledge of the Bible; two candidates mentioned in the New Testament who meet these criteria are Barnabas and Apollos, both of whom were Jewish Christians... The qualities of these two candidates is attested to in the article, but we are left with the conclusion... but in the absence of any work written by Barnabas or Apollos and in any other first century evidence, identifying either as the author of the letter is only conjecture.
Turning to the Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible edited by Charles Layman, we read regarding the authorship of the Hebrews [quoting Warren A Quanbeck]:

a very old tradition, preserved in the Vulgate, and in the King James version, ascribes Hebrews to Paul. When we examine the book itself, however, and the testimony of ancient writers to it, we discover that it's authorship is uncertain and that we know very little about its origin, destination, and the. It is difficult to determine even why the letter was written, and modern interpreters differ on this question.

The earliest known quotation from the book appears in a letter of Clement of Rome usually dated around A.D. 96. From this and other citations we learn that in the western part of the church it was known very early but was not ascribed to Paul until the fourth century. The story is different in the East. Here it was ascribed to Paul as early as the second century, although scholars in Alexandria, especially Origen, had their doubts about Pauline authorship because it differed from the Pauline letters in literary style and theological language.

Detailed study in modern times has led to almost unanimous agreement that the language, style and ideas differ so markedly from those of Paul that it is almost inconceivable that he could have been the author. Origen long-ago absurd that will be Arthur was God alone really notes. Modern scholarship has been unable to improve on this verdict, though it has examined with care their credentials of those who have been nominated for the honor, including Barnabas, Apollos and Clement.
Let's quote from a few Christian Bibles, shall we?

Beginning with the Oxford Annotated Bible, Revised Standard Version, College Edition, we read in the introduction:
This anonymous treatise contains the longest sustained argument of any book in the Bible. With careful and closely the discussions, the unknown author moves with confidence step-by-step through an elaborate proof of the preeminence of Christianity over Judaism.
As we see, this Bible correctly calls this book anonymous or with an unknown author. Unless those of titles for Paul, he is not the author of this book.

In the Nelson Version of the New King James Version of the Word in Life Study Bible, we read:

the author of Hebrews writes as if the original readers of the letter already who it was (Hebrew 13:22). Unfortunately, modern readers do not. If we did, it would perhaps help us to better understand the epistle.

Hebrews is one of only two letters in the New Testament then back a greeting or identification of its author ( the other is 1 John). The King James version cause the letter "the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews." But there is no such indication in the earliest manuscripts, and many people doubt whether Paul wrote the book. Amongst their reasons:

The language, vocabulary, and style differ in certain respects from Paul's letters.

Certain expressions that call commonly uses - "Jesus Christ", "in Christ", "the resurrection"- are all but absent.

Hebrews approaches certain subjects, such as the law and faith, somewhat differently from Paul's known writings.

Early church sources mentioned other possible authors.

Others challenge these points, yet no one has conclusively demonstrated the policy author. But if not, then who was? There has been no shortage of suggestions: Luke, Priscilla, Aquila, Clement of Rome, Sylvanus, Philip the evangelist, Apollos and Barnabas are some.

In the end we are not know who wrote this letter...
As you can see, not everyone agrees with your conclusion. Perhaps, that is the extent of your scholarship on this matter. I would conclude that your scholarship is simply not enough of this forum. Just because we are Muslims, doesn't mean that some of us have spent many years researching these subjects. Just because you read a book or see a chart does not mean that you have a grasp of a situation. This appears to be true both in your limited knowledge of Christianity as well as your even more limited knowledge of Islam. Perhaps you would do well to learn from us, rather than come with inadequate points and try to debate us!

by the way, just to make the point, Melchizedek actually had a beginning and an end. He was born using the Jewish calendar in the year 1558 and passed away in the year 2158. He was born when Methuselah was still alive and he lived to see Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob. He had both a father and a mother and a son. Of course this is totally unknown to Christians, but we here, at least some of us, have studied these matters. Any studied Jew would be well aware of this knowledge. It may have been lost to Christian, but it still exists.

Maybe some of this new knowledge will inspire you to learn the truth of matters and dispense with Christian rhetoric. And Allah knows best.

Salaam
Reply

Trumble
07-25-2010, 12:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Airforce
Their Scripture says they cant
Hmm.. in my turn I Googled that to, erm...http://hinduismexposed.wordpress.com/. Now, had something analogous in relation to Islam been posted you would all be falling over yourselves clamouring about anti-islamic sites, desperately Googling scholars, regurgitating copious refutations and condemning others for their ignorance and stupidity with smug satisfaction after so doing.

Doncha just love 'Comparative Religion'? ;D
Reply

Rabi Mansur
07-25-2010, 02:15 AM
Muslim apologists appeal to the Bible to argue that because Mary's relative was "a daughter of Aaron" (Luke 1:5) then Mary herself must also have been descended from Aaron. But this doesn't necessarily follow.

Far more definite and conclusive scriptures show that Mary and Jesus had no Aaronic or Levitical ancestry at all (Hebrews 7:11-14).
These verses in the book of Hebrews highlight yet another of the many contradictions in the bible...hence the need for more scripture.

Hebrews, as has been pointed out, is of unknown origin. I can tell you (I took some Greek in college) that the Greek text of Hebrews is NOTHING like the letters of Paul. It is written in very polished, classical Greek. Paul's letters use totally different terminology, are written in koine Greek and he always begins them and ends them characteristically. Whoever originally authored Hebrews is now unknown to history. I highly doubt that Paul was the author of Hebrews and I don't know of any scholars who feel that Paul wrote Hebrews, anyway...

You may want to take a look at some of the writings by scholars James Tabor and Robert Eisenmann who have plowed a lot of new ground on some of these issues. They point out that the brother of Jesus (James) was known to have priestly connections and in fact James the brother of Jesus also is known for his priestly orientation, ( his mother is not Davidic because as I noted above Luke's genealogy is not hers.) Tabor's book on James' line notes that it has a strong component of priestly/Levite blood running through it, Hegisippus tells us that James wore the white linen of the priest, and a mitre of some type, and was allowed to enter the inner sanctuary of the Temple. We also have the tradition in the Gospel of the Hebrews that James was indeed present at the last supper, and that Jesus handed over to him some kind of “garment” that signified his priestly office.

So we have Jesus' brother with priestly/Levite blood and Mary's cousin Elizabeth as a daughter of Aaron. Kind of intriguing isn't it?

:wa:
Reply

Hiroshi
07-25-2010, 09:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
no one is getting angry at your lack of knowledge, you simply say things that aren't what they say let's look on your quote on the authorship of Hebrew:
Thank you YusufNoor. I will research all the things that you (and others) have mentioned. And maybe that will change my thinking ... :hmm: But, as I said, I would feel happier making no further comment on this present discussion.

Salaam my friend.
Reply

bhakti
07-25-2010, 02:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

Indeed in Islam we're asked to question, reflect and seek knowledge .. very difficult to become of age and reason and simply take things at word value!
That's interesting. I maybe wrong but I thought there are verses in Quran that say stuff like 'if you disbelieve in Allah you are committing a great sin and its a sin bigger than killing' etc.

There's also a lot of stuff criticizing disbelievers and describing how they will go to Hell etc. I really don't know how such mortal threats can foster a liberal attitude?
Reply

جوري
07-25-2010, 04:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
That's interesting. I maybe wrong but I thought there are verses in Quran that say stuff like 'if you disbelieve in Allah you are committing a great sin and its a sin bigger than killing' etc.
Have a read at the entire Quran and then come and argue what you know.. what say you?
There's also a lot of stuff criticizing disbelievers and describing how they will go to Hell etc. I really don't know how such mortal threats can foster a liberal attitude?
Who said the Muslim attitude is a liberal one? and how is criticism of kuffr and seeking knowledge synonymous?

all the best
Reply

bhakti
07-25-2010, 04:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


Have a read at the entire Quran and then come and argue what you know.. what say you?

Who said the Muslim attitude is a liberal one? and how is criticism of kuffr and seeking knowledge synonymous?

all the best
Interesting answers again! Are you suggesting there's nothing in the Quran that conveys the idea of 'if you disbelieve in Allah you are committing a great sin and its a sin bigger than killing' ? Please answer with a yes or no. Coz you must have read the quran right? So you shd know.

Nothing wrong with criticism. It is just the choice of 'Accept Allah or Burn in Eternal Hell' that puts an end to all 'questioning'.
Reply

جوري
07-25-2010, 04:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
Interesting answers again! Are you suggesting there's nothing in the Quran that conveys the idea of 'if you disbelieve in Allah you are committing a great sin and its a sin bigger than killing' ? Please answer with a yes or no. Coz you must have read the quran right? So you shd know.

Never have I suggested that kuffr isn't the greatest sin, in fact, so I have mentioned in my very last post on (eternity in hell's fire) post.. it isn't a great mystery!

Nothing wrong with criticism. It is just the choice of 'Accept Allah or Burn in Eternal Hell' that puts an end to all 'questioning'.

Not really.. you have a free will to do as you please!- if your knowledge quest leads you some other path, then be ready to defend it when the day comes!

all the best
Reply

bhakti
07-25-2010, 05:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

Never have I suggested that kuffr isn't the greatest sin, in fact, so I have mentioned in my very last post on (eternity in hell's fire) post.. it isn't a great mystery!


Not really.. you have a free will to do as you please!- if your knowledge quest leads you some other path, then be ready to defend it when the day comes!

all the best
This gets even better! Don't you see how you are contradicting yourself? You say 'Disbelief in Allah is the greatest sin'. If it has already been decreed in Allah's court that I'm a sinner since I didn't put my faith in him, what chance do I have to defend myself?
Reply

جوري
07-25-2010, 05:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
This gets even better! Don't you see how you are contradicting yourself? You say 'Disbelief in Allah is the greatest sin'. If it has already been decreed in Allah's court that I'm a sinner since I didn't put my faith in him, what chance do I have to defend myself?
No, I don't see how I am contradicting myself-- I don't see how believing in one thing or another takes away from your free will, and if your beliefs lead you some other path, then the Islamic stance on the matter should really be negligible from your point of view.. I shouldn't have to be made to feel guilty or justify consequences of something you don't believe in, for a life style choice that you chose for yourself! if you sincerely believe that bathing in cow dung and mistreating others in accordance to their birth rights, and that the universe is one (with what that actually entails of contradiction) is the right and just path that will lead you to eternal happiness, then be able to defend it, if you are not sure that it is the right path, then perhaps you should ask God for guidance and reflect on your creation and that of the world around you and reconsider your convictions...

all the best
Reply

جوري
07-25-2010, 05:20 PM
addendum to the above (on free will) using the noble Quran:

وَقُلِ الْحَقُّ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ ۖ فَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيُؤْمِنْ وَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ ۚ
[Pickthal 18:29] Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve.
Reply

bhakti
07-25-2010, 05:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

No, I don't see how I am contradicting myself-- I don't see how believing in one thing or another takes away from your free will, and if your beliefs lead you some other path, then the Islamic stance on the matter should really be negligible from your point of view.. I shouldn't have to be made to feel guilty or justify consequences of something you don't believe in, for a life style choice that you chose for yourself!
all the best
Yes, Islam's stance is negligible to me. However, it clearly is not to you and there lies the problem. If you leave me alone, I leave you alone. The entire point behind Dawah and aggressive conversion is to get people to believe in Allah and not allow them to 'neglect Islam' and keep a safe distance.
Reply

جوري
07-25-2010, 05:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
Yes, Islam's stance is negligible to me. However, it clearly is not to you and there lies the problem. If you leave me alone, I leave you alone. The entire point behind Dawah and aggressive conversion is to get people to believe in Allah and not allow them to 'neglect Islam' and keep a safe distance.
What aggressive conversions do you speak of in a time when simply wearing a veil grants you the VIP treatment from every dog that crosses your path? and the entire Muslim region is either engaged in wars or under threats of it.. Pls. fellow give me a break, also, I'll assume you are here of your own free will, if you don't wish the da3wa squad to be sent after you, then simply leave the forum and disable your account, or are you too good to be true?

Some very funny folks we have here on board!
Reply

bhakti
07-25-2010, 05:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
addendum to the above (on free will) using the noble Quran:

وَقُلِ الْحَقُّ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ ۖ فَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيُؤْمِنْ وَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ ۚ
[Pickthal 18:29] Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve.
Please allow me to finish that for you:

"Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!"
Reply

جوري
07-25-2010, 05:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
Please allow me to finish that for you:

"Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!"
Indeed! and sadaqa Allah al3atheem!

all the best and good luck!
Reply

bhakti
07-25-2010, 05:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


What aggressive conversions do you speak of in a time when simply wearing a veil grants you the VIP treatment from every dog that crosses your path? and the entire Muslim region is either engaged in wars or under threats of it.. Pls. fellow give me a break, also, I'll assume you are here of your own free will, if you don't wish the da3wa squad to be sent after you, then simply leave the forum and disable your account, or are you too good to be true?

Some very funny folks we have here on board!
I live in India and I know what I'm seeing. There are huge hoardings everywhere about the 'TRUE RELIGION'. There are stalls in every major mall giving away free copies of the Quran and encouraging people to convert. There are stupid debates of religion vs religion where there are huge congregations of muslims and they clap at pure crap from the muslim side and jeer at everything from the opposite side. Muslims are all over youtube commenting on Hindu videos about the 'TRUE RELIGION'. This is definitely a consequence of the Quran declaring conversion as the sacred duty of every Muslim. I don't hate muslims. Faith is subjective and I have no problem with that. But stop thrusting the Quran into my face at ever bend of the road. Seriously, just get off my face and I'll get off yours.
Reply

جوري
07-25-2010, 05:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
I live in India and I know what I'm seeing. There are huge hoardings everywhere about the 'TRUE RELIGION'. There are stalls in every major mall giving away free copies of the Quran and encouraging people to convert. There are stupid debates of religion vs religion where there are huge congregations of muslims and they clap at pure crap from the muslim side and jeer at everything from the opposite side. Muslims are all over youtube commenting on Hindu videos about the 'TRUE RELIGION'. This is definitely a consequence of the Quran declaring conversion as the sacred duty of every Muslim. I don't hate muslims. Faith is subjective and I have no problem with that. But stop thrusting the Quran into my face at ever bend of the road. Seriously, just get off my face and I'll get off yours.

Why don't you organize and do something about it? oh wait, you have.. let's see:
Radical Hindu Party Promises Anti-Conversion Law In Himachal Pradesh, India

Radical Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has promised to introduce anti-conversion legislation in Himachal Pradesh state if it wins the upcoming state assembly elections.
by Jennifer GoldPosted: Friday, September 29, 2006, 8:43 (BST)

Radical Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has promised to introduce anti-conversion legislation in Himachal Pradesh state if it wins the upcoming state assembly elections, according to U.S.-based human rights group, International Christian Concern (ICC). The BJP has already introduced similar laws in three other states.
The announcement was made by the leader of the opposition in Himachal Pradesh and former chief minister, Prem Kumar Dhumal, in a press conference in Nahan district on 21 September, according to ICC.
"After coming to power in Himachal Pradesh, the BJP would bring legislations against religious conversion and slaughtering of cows (considered holy by Hindus) as the present government had completely failed to protect the rights of the Hindus," national daily The Indian Express quoted Dhumal as saying.
Dhumal claimed that Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh, of the Congress party, had assured the legislature that the rights of the Hindus would be protected and that no "forced" conversions would be allowed, "but this had been continuing in the state and the government had failed to do anything about it".
Dhumal was not available for comments.
Talking to ICC, Dr. Sajan K. George, president of the Global Council of Indian Christians, said the promise of an anti-conversion law by the BJP leader will "trigger hate against Christians".
"We fear that such statements will vitiate the atmosphere and the radicals will take law into their own hands. The storm troopers of the saffron brigade (Hindu fundamentalist organisations) will unleash terror on minorities," he added.
The BJP had earlier announced that it would enact a law banning conversions in Himachal Pradesh in 2003 before the then forthcoming elections, but it did not come to power. The next elections are due in 2008.
Himachal Pradesh is one of the states with the smallest Christian population, and many Hindu fundamentalist groups are active in the state. Of the total population of over six million, less than 8,000 are Christian.
Supporters of Hindu groups Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal had attacked 62-year-old Pastor Feroz Masih of the Gospel for Asia organisation on 4 November 2005.
Recently, the BJP made anti-conversion laws more stringent in three states under its control. In Gujarat, the party amended the law on 19 September, in Chhattisgarh on 3 August and Madhya Pradesh on 25 July. However, the governors of these states are yet to give assent to the amendments bills.
The BJP had also promised to introduce an anti-conversion bill in Jharkhand state, but lost their majority in the house and subsequently lost power. The party then promised similar legislation in Punjab state, which will have elections in the near future.
Archbishop Stanislaus Fernandes of Gujarat's Gandhinagar Archdiocese on 20 September wrote to the state governor raising objections to the anti-conversion law.
"Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts, 'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance'," said the letter.
Fernandes said there was sufficient provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to deal with any matters of force, fraud or corruption in general, and one did not need a new Act to deal with conversions.
"We would like to know if the government has been able to find a single case of 'forced' conversion in Gujarat," he said.
For more information please visit ICC at www.persecution.org





Hinduism

Christians have alleged that "radical Hindu groups" in Orissa, India have forced Christian converts from Hinduism to "revert"[45] to Hinduism. These "religious riots" were largely between two tribal groups in Orissa, one of which was predominantly Hindu and another predominantly Christian, over the assassination of a Hindu leader named Swami Laxmananda by Christian Maoists operating as terrorist groups in India (see Naxalite).[46] In the aftermath of the violence, Christian evangelical groups have claimed that Hindus are "forcibly reverting" Christians to Hinduism.[45]
However, Christian groups itself have dismissed these allegations, saying Hindus have been extremely cordial to them.[47]
Hindu Threat to Christians: Convert or Flee
By SOMINI SENGUPTA



A Christian in her burned home in the Indian state of Orissa. Villagers blamed Hindu militants.

BOREPANGA, India — The family of Solomon Digal was summoned by neighbors to what serves as a public square in front of the village tea shop.


Borepanga has been rocked by weeks of religious violence.


Christians driven from their homes by fears of forced conversions prayed at a refugee camp last week in Bhubaneshwar, India

They were ordered to get on their knees and bow before the portrait of a Hindu preacher. They were told to turn over their Bibles, hymnals and the two brightly colored calendar images of Christ that hung on their wall. Then, Mr. Digal, 45, a Christian since childhood, was forced to watch his Hindu neighbors set the items on fire.

“ ‘Embrace Hinduism, and your house will not be demolished,’ ” Mr. Digal recalled being told on that Wednesday afternoon in September. “ ‘Otherwise, you will be killed, or you will be thrown out of the village.’ ”

India, the world’s most populous democracy and officially a secular nation, is today haunted by a stark assault on one of its fundamental freedoms. Here in eastern Orissa State, riven by six weeks of religious clashes, Christian families like the Digals say they are being forced to abandon their faith in exchange for their safety.

The forced conversions come amid widening attacks on Christians here and in at least five other states across the country, as India prepares for national elections next spring.

The clash of faiths has cut a wide swath of panic and destruction through these once quiet hamlets fed by paddy fields and jackfruit trees. Here in Kandhamal, the district that has seen the greatest violence, more than 30 people have been killed, 3,000 homes burned and over 130 churches destroyed, including the tin-roofed Baptist prayer hall where the Digals worshiped. Today it is a heap of rubble on an empty field, where cows blithely graze.

Across this ghastly terrain lie the singed remains of mud-and-thatch homes. Christian-owned businesses have been systematically attacked. Orange flags (orange is the sacred color of Hinduism) flutter triumphantly above the rooftops of houses and storefronts.

India is no stranger to religious violence between Christians, who make up about 2 percent of the population, and India’s Hindu-majority of 1.1 billion people. But this most recent spasm is the most intense in years.

It was set off, people here say, by the killing on Aug. 23 of a charismatic Hindu preacher known as Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati, who for 40 years had rallied the area’s people to choose Hinduism over Christianity.

The police have blamed Maoist guerrillas for the swami’s killing. But Hindu radicals continue to hold Christians responsible.

In recent weeks, they have plastered these villages with gruesome posters of the swami’s hacked corpse. “Who killed him?” the posters ask. “What is the solution?”

Behind the clashes are long-simmering tensions between equally impoverished groups: the Panas and Kandhas. Both original inhabitants of the land, the two groups for ages worshiped the same gods. Over the past several decades, the Panas for the most part became Christian, as Roman Catholic and Baptist missionaries arrived here more than 60 years ago, followed more recently by Pentecostals, who have proselytized more aggressively.

Meanwhile, the Kandhas, in part through the teachings of Swami Laxmanananda, embraced Hinduism. The men tied the sacred Hindu white thread around their torsos; their wives daubed their foreheads with bright red vermilion. Temples sprouted.

Hate has been fed by economic tensions as well, as the government has categorized each group differently and given them different privileges.

The Kandhas accused the Panas of cheating to obtain coveted quotas for government jobs. The Christian Panas, in turn, say their neighbors have become resentful as they have educated themselves and prospered.

Their grievances have erupted in sporadic clashes over the past 15 years, but they have exploded with a fury since the killing of Swami Laxmanananda.

Two nights after his death, a Hindu mob in the village of Nuagaon dragged a Catholic priest and a nun from their residence, tore off much of their clothing and paraded them through the streets.

The nun told the police that she had been raped by four men, a charge the police say was borne out by a medical examination. Yet no one was arrested in the case until five weeks later, after a storm of media coverage. Today, five men are under arrest in connection with inciting the riots. The police say they are trying to find the nun and bring her back here to identify her attackers.

Given a chance to explain the recent violence, Subash Chauhan, the state’s highest-ranking leader of Bajrang Dal, a Hindu radical group, described much of it as “a spontaneous reaction.”

He said in an interview that the nun had not been raped but had had regular consensual sex.

On Sunday evening, as much of Kandhamal remained under curfew, Mr. Chauhan sat in the hall of a Hindu school in the state capital, Bhubaneshwar, beneath a huge portrait of the swami. A state police officer was assigned to protect him round the clock. He cupped a trilling Blackberry in his hand.

Mr. Chauhan denied that his group was responsible for forced conversions and in turn accused Christian missionaries of luring villagers with incentives of schools and social services.

He was asked repeatedly whether Christians in Orissa should be left free to worship the god of their choice. “Why not?” he finally said, but he warned that it was unrealistic to expect the Kandhas to politely let their Pana enemies live among them as followers of Jesus.

“Who am I to give assurance?” he snapped. “Those who have exploited the Kandhas say they want to live together?”

Besides, he said, “they are Hindus by birth.”

Hindu extremists have held ceremonies in the country’s indigenous belt for the past several years intended to purge tribal communities of Christian influence.

It is impossible to know how many have been reconverted here, in the wake of the latest violence, though a three-day journey through the villages of Kandhamal turned up plenty of anecdotal evidence.

A few steps from where the nun had been attacked in Nuagaon, five men, their heads freshly shorn, emerged from a soggy tent in a relief camp for Christians fleeing their homes.

The men had also been summoned to a village meeting in late August, where hundreds of their neighbors stood with machetes in hand and issued a firm order: Get your heads shaved and bow down before our gods, or leave this place.

Trembling with fear, Daud Nayak, 56, submitted to a shaving, a Hindu sign of sacrifice. He drank, as instructed, a tumbler of diluted cow dung, considered to be purifying.

In the eyes of his neighbors, he reckoned, he became a Hindu.

In his heart, he said, he could not bear it.

All five men said they fled the next day with their families. They refuse to return.

In another village, Birachakka, a man named Balkrishna Digal and his son, Saroj, said they had been summoned to a similar meeting and told by Hindu leaders who came from nearby villages that they, too, would have to convert. In their case, the ceremony was deferred because of rumors of Christian-Hindu clashes nearby.

For the time being, the family had placed an orange flag on their mud home. Their Hindu neighbors promised to protect them.

Here in Borepanga, the family of Solomon Digal was not so lucky. Shortly after they recounted their Sept. 10 Hindu conversion story to a reporter in the dark of night, the Digals were again summoned by their neighbors. They were scolded and fined 501 rupees, or about $12, a pinching sum here.

The next morning, calmly clearing his cauliflower field, Lisura Paricha, one of the Hindu men who had summoned the Digals, confirmed that they had been penalized. Their crime, he said, was to talk to outsiders.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-a...vert-flee.html

Home » Blogs » newsman's blog
TERROR PLOT OF RADICAL HINDUS -Expose by media


Saffron brigade's terror plots exposed
Ashish Khetan
New Delhi, July 15, 2010
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/105546/120/saffron-brigades-terr...
A plot to target Vice-President Hamid Ansari. An RSS functionary mentoring the Ajmer Sharif and Mecca Masjid bomber. And a BJP leader planning an underground outfit to kill minorities has been exposed.
Headlines Today has exclusively accessed material - in the form of video tapes and witness accounts available with investigators - that puts elements within the Sangh Parivar under the scanner.
Among those in the dock are RSS leader Indresh Kumar, BJP leader B.L. Sharma, Delhi-based endocrinologist Dr R.P. Singh and Dr Sharad Kunthe, head of the chemistry department at Pune's Wadia College.
INDRESH KUMAR, RSS
A Headlines Today investigation has found that RSS leader Indresh Kumar shared close links with Sunil Joshi, who had planted bombs in 2007 at the Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad and the Ajmer Sharif dargah.
As per a written statement of the witness recorded by the Rajasthan ATS and CBI, Indresh was aware of the terror plot and even approved of it.
Indresh is a member of the Akhil Bharatiya Karyakari Mandal, the central decision-making body of the RSS. He is a close aide of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat and also wields immense clout in the BJP.
Headlines Today tracked down the witness, and his revelations are ****ing.
Reporter: So Indresh was the driving force behind Sunil Joshi's activities?
Witness: If you mentor someone and are his godfather, it cannot be possible that you aren't aware of his activities.
Reporter: And Joshi was very close to Indresh?
Witness: Yes he used to claim so.
Reporter: He said he was always with him?
Witness: He would say that he was in constant communication with Indreshji.
The witness, who is from Gujarat, was closely associated with Joshi, a Madhya Pradesh-based RSS pracharak.
The blast at Mecca Masjid killed 17 people while two people died in the explosion at Ajmer Sharif. The Mecca Masjid blast is being probed by the CBI while the Ajmer Sharif probe is with the Rajasthan Police.
In May this year, the Rajasthan ATS arrested two RSS pracharaks on terror charges. But the RSS has denied it has anything to do with terror.
"There is no such thing as Hindu terror. The investigating agencies wanted some information. We are extending full co-operation," RSS leader Ram Madhav said.
Now, with material emerging against Indresh, the RSS central leadership will have much to explain.
Indresh holds several important responsibilities in the RSS. One of them ironically being the head of Muslim Rashtriya Manch, the Sangh's Muslim cell.
When contacted by Headlines Today, Indresh denied all allegations.
B.L. SHARMA, BJP
Another Sangh Parivar leader in the dock is B.L. Sharma of the BJP. Headlines Today has accessed a video that shows Sharma in league with Dayanand Pandey and Lt Col Srikant Purohit, both accused in the 2008 Malegaon blasts and in jail.
In the video, Sharma is holding a meeting where he talks about starting an underground terrorist movement against Muslims. The meeting happened at a temple in Nasik in 2007 - at a time when Lt Col Purohit was posted there - and laid the foundation for the formation of Hindu militant group Abhinav Bharat.
Also present was Bhai Dalvi, a self-styled Hindu fanatic from Mumbai.
Here are excerpts from their conversation:
Dalvi: There should be blasts across India. People should die in lakhs and crores. Only then will they (Muslims) panic and come on our side.
Pandey: This will create pressure and they will convert on their own.
Dalvi: Yes.
Pandey: Once the conversion begins, it will not take long for the entire country to get converted (to Hinduism).
Sharma: They will return (to Hinduism) just the way they went away.
Pandey: You are right.
Sharma is a two-time BJP MP. He was elected from the East Delhi constituency in 1991 and 1996. He fought the 2009 Lok Sabha elections from North East Delhi but lost.
Investigators said Sharma also participated in other terror meetings that Abhinav Bharat held across the country. In public, however, he presented a different face, telling Headlines Today that he is a peace-loving man and against all terror activities.
DR R.P. SINGH, ENDOCRINOLOGIST
The saffron terror ring also had a vicious plan to target Vice-President Hamid Ansari.
As per information accessed from investigators by Headlines Today, a meeting was held in Faridabad in January 2008. It was attended by Dr R.P. Singh, an endocrinologist at one of Delhi's biggest hospitals, Dayanand Pandey, Lt Col Purohit and B.L Sharma. In this meeting, the failed bid to target Ansari was talked about.
Pandey: Let me tell you that an awards ceremony was held at Jamia Millia Islamia University in which Vice-President Hamid Ansari was present.
Dr Singh: I had gone to raise a protest at that meeting. I took 15 litres of petrol with me but I didn't get a chance.
In the same meeting, Purohit said they had stopped believing in the Indian Constitution and would fight to establish a 'Hindu rashtra'.
Sources in the Maharashtra ATS told Headlines Today that since there was no direct evidence to link Dr Singh to the Malegaon blasts, he wasn't arrested.
But the police said Dr Singh was part of the larger saffron terror ring and other agencies should have investigated him.
Headlines Today has accessed tapes recovered from Pandey's laptop that detail many such terror meetings. Here is what Dr Singh is heard saying in one these tapes:
Dr Singh: Muslims are enemy no. 1 and I want to kill them, beginning from Delhi. They own thousands of showrooms here that I want to loot.
Pandey: To strengthen our finances.
Dr Singh: The financial situation is weak... The Hindus will not give so some (Muslim) homes have been spotted for looting.
Dr Singh even mentions how he has accumulated weapons through a police officer in Assam. In one of the terror meetings, he can also be heard asking Purohit to supply him grenades, detonators and RDX.
Dr Singh: I need grenades, high-voltage detonators and batteries and RDX. Those of whom we approached say the army can provide these. If we get these items, we can do a spectacular war.
DR SHARAD KUNTHE, PUNE
If Dr Singh was being a disgrace to his profession, Pune's Dr Sharad Kunthe was poisoning young minds.
Dr Kunthe, head of the chemistry department at Wadia College, was suspected of holding training camps and teaching his students to assemble bombs.
He was grilled by the Maharashtra ATS for his alleged role in the Malegaon and Nanded blasts and is now under the CBI's scanner.
Dr Kunthe has been nailed by one of his aides Rakesh Dhawde, who helped him in his missions. "In June 2003, Dr Kunthe asked me to conduct a survey of the Pune Satara Road and Akansha bungalow near Sinhgadh Qila and let him know which would be better for a terror camp. After a survey, I suggested Sinhgadh would be appropriate," Dhawde told a magistrate.
Dhawde is an accused in the Malegaon blasts case and is lodged in the Nashik jail along with Lt Col Purohit

http://www.persecution.in/content/te...s-expose-media

why the web is just riddled with these.. makes me wonder why you feel so victimized? over a billion or so still bathing in cow dung and counting, and killing others..

strange world indeed..

all the best
Reply

bhakti
07-25-2010, 06:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

why the web is just riddled with these.. makes me wonder why you feel so victimized?


That's a typically stupid response and therefore very interesting for a whole host of reasons:

1) It is painfully obvious that the incidents you quoted are a reaction to aggressive conversion tactics of other religions. It is the result of a huge build up of frustration over the slimy converters. In other words if conversion didn't happen from your side, these unfortunate incidents would never occur. As such, you are responsible. By your own admission a group of people decided to "organize and do something about it".
Clearly, it is a reaction and not a result of Hindu beliefs.

2) Neither do I nor does Hinduism condone such acts. However, Islam and you certainly condone aggressive conversion which finally culminates in violence.

3) Did you notice the part about "However, Christian groups itself have dismissed these allegations, saying Hindus have been extremely cordial to them." ? Well, I did. :)

4) For every copy-paste you do on Hindu violence, I can do a million on Islamic violence. What does that prove?


Reply

Insaanah
07-25-2010, 07:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
There's also a lot of stuff criticizing disbelievers and describing how they will go to Hell etc. I really don't know how such mortal threats can foster a liberal attitude?
Allah is fair. He is telling disbelievers now what will happen to them. No one will be able to say they didn't know what was going to happen to them. First Allah has explained His Oneness, asked them to believe, and given them free will, fully informing them of the consequences of not doing so. And if they don't, He has explained the consequences. They have been forewarned. Allah does not punish without forewarning.

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
Don't you see how you are contradicting yourself? You say 'Disbelief in Allah is the greatest sin'. If it has already been decreed in Allah's court that I'm a sinner since I didn't put my faith in him, what chance do I have to defend myself?
This is no contradiction at all, rather a lack of understanding on your part. Perhaps you don't believe in an All Powerful, All Knowing God. We do. Allah knows the past, present and future. You have complete free will to make all your choices, but with His infinite knowledge of the future, He knows what choice you will make, but you have complete free will to make that choice.

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
Interesting answers again! Are you suggesting there's nothing in the Quran that conveys the idea of 'if you disbelieve in Allah you are committing a great sin and its a sin bigger than killing' ? Please answer with a yes or no. Coz you must have read the quran right? So you shd know.
I can't find any verse that says it's a sin bigger than killing. But since you think it's there, the onus is on you to give us the reference. That's not to say it's not a huge sin.

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
Nothing wrong with criticism. It is just the choice of 'Accept Allah or Burn in Eternal Hell' that puts an end to all 'questioning'.
That is the choice. And you have free will to accept it or not. Ask the reverts to Islam on this forum. They all came to it through questioning and asking, and by realising it was the only faith that appealed to both logic and sense. Those that didn't accept the message of Islam, didn't become Muslim. Simple really.

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
there lies the problem. If you leave me alone, I leave you alone. .
With all due respect, you came here and joined the forum and interjected in the thread.

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
The entire point behind Dawah and aggressive conversion is to get people to believe in Allah and not allow them to 'neglect Islam' and keep a safe distance.
And here we have another follower of the typical media stereotype of Islam being spread by the sword. Of course the thousands (if not millions) who embrace Islam each year after researching faiths and coming to realise the logic of Islam are chosen conveniently to be ignored. The whole world is being forced to convert..oh dear!

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
I live in India and I know what I'm seeing. There are huge hoardings everywhere about the 'TRUE RELIGION'. There are stalls in every major mall giving away free copies of the Quran and encouraging people to convert. There are stupid debates of religion vs religion .
Christians do this too. I take it you have posted to the same effect on Christian forums too? Oh, and sorry if you can't handle debate. May people of all faiths handle it very well, and find it enlightening and learn from it.

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
This is definitely a consequence of the Quran declaring conversion as the sacred duty of every Muslim.
Please tell me where it says that conversion is the duty of each Muslim. Conveying the message of our faith to others is, then the choice is theirs whether to accept or not. Please bring me the Quran or hadeeth text that says conversion is a duty.

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
I don't hate muslims.
Your posts imply otherwise.

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
But stop thrusting the Quran into my face at ever bend of the road. Seriously, just get off my face and I'll get off yours.
I shall bite my tongue here, and just say:

a) You chose to join this forum

b) You interjected in the thread

c) It was you, who in your first post in this thread, stated what you thought the Qur'an said in a verse. None of us threw the Qur'an in your face nor mentioned it. You interjected in the thread, and you wanted an answer about the supposed "verse", then when you got the answer, you claim the Qur'an is being thrown in your face.

Make your mind up.

Peace.
Reply

Sister Unknown
07-25-2010, 07:13 PM
There's also a lot of stuff criticizing disbelievers and describing how they will go to Hell etc. I really don't know how such mortal threats can foster a liberal attitude?
Allah forbids everyhting that is bad for us, including leaving Islam.

Interesting answers again! Are you suggesting there's nothing in the Quran that conveys the idea of 'if you disbelieve in Allah you are committing a great sin and its a sin bigger than killing' ? Please answer with a yes or no. Coz you must have read the quran right? So you shd know.
Accepting Allah means accepting everything he and Muhammad, sall-Alalhu alayhi wa salam, ordain!

That's why; because disbelieving in Allah's reviliation (way of life) is rejecting everything. Allah forbids all that is bad for us, therefore, that what you reject, are all commands set by Islam, you have no good deeds as you will end up in fire which is the worst thing. That is why shirk is the biggest sin. It is the worst to you.


And all deeds must be for the sake of Allah, because we love Him. This is the big difference between our deeds and yours. You want a reward of the life on this world for what you do. Or for wahtever reason except for the face of Allah. If you continue to question this principle, I'll easily refute you. Your brain might hurt a little.
Reply

syed_z
07-25-2010, 07:26 PM
@Bhakti

Now your such an ignorant person may God give you guidance..... the Muslims ruled over Hindus in Indo-Pak Subcontinent for almost 1000 years... from Muhammad Bin Qasim till the end of Mughal empire till 1857... all were Muslims... if Islam and Muslims were really about force Conversions and forcing the Hindus to convert.... there would not have been even a Single Hindu left in India today.....
Reply

جوري
07-25-2010, 08:31 PM
]
format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti


That's a typically stupid response and therefore very interesting for a whole host of reasons:

There is no such a thing as a stupid response, just people inept at comprehending the obvious!
1) It is painfully obvious that the incidents you quoted are a reaction to aggressive conversion tactics of other religions. It is the result of a huge build up of frustration over the slimy converters. In other words if conversion didn't happen from your side, these unfortunate incidents would never occur. As such, you are responsible. By your own admission a group of people decided to "organize and do something about it".
Clearly, it is a reaction and not a result of Hindu beliefs.

Does that justify equally forced conversions by slimy Hindus?.. what if people genuinely wanted to give up Cow dung for something else?

2) Neither do I nor does Hinduism condone such acts. However, Islam and you certainly condone aggressive conversion which finally culminates in violence.
Really? Show me where in Islam it says convert others by acts of violence!
3) Did you notice the part about "However, Christian groups itself have dismissed these allegations, saying Hindus have been extremely cordial to them." ? Well, I did. :)
Really? Well it seems one incident too many for christian/Muslims groups to dismiss, as it seems you couldn't read past the title!
4) For every copy-paste you do on Hindu violence, I can do a million on Islamic violence. What does that prove?
You tell me, you came here alleging that you want us out of your face, well the fact is, you are very much in other people's faces.. doesn't make you the victim or very innocent does it?


have a wonderful day and good luck with all of that..
Reply

جوري
07-25-2010, 08:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z
@Bhakti

Now your such an ignorant person may God give you guidance..... the Muslims ruled over Hindus in Indo-Pak Subcontinent for almost 1000 years... from Muhammad Bin Qasim till the end of Mughal empire till 1857... all were Muslims... if Islam and Muslims were really about force Conversions and forcing the Hindus to convert.... there would not have been even a Single Hindu left in India today.....
Perhaps one of the most enlightening posts here.. Jazaka Allah khyran..
these kaffirs east and west are so willing to bite than hands that fed them and fostered a peaceful enlightening existence for them.. They all can't wait though to shed civility for elephant gods, cow dung or men gods.. it is really a conundrum to me.. sob7an Allah..

:w:
Reply

Zafran
07-25-2010, 09:13 PM
Salaam

every religion has a tradition of exremism and Hinduism is no exception.

peace
Reply

Rhubarb Tart
07-25-2010, 09:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Salaam

every religion has a tradition of exremism and Hinduism is no exception.

peace
Yes....

Hindu Extremism Being Ignored
Monday January 19, 2004
The American media often has a lot to say about Islamic militants and Muslims who commit violence in the Middle East, and it is true that they pose a threat to others (as well as to other Muslims). However, that same media typically ignores similar extremism and similar violence committed by Hindu nationalists in India.

Pakistan's Daily Times reports:
Paul Marshall, a senior fellow at Freedom House’s Centre for Religious Freedom who recently published a book on the rise of Hindu extremism in India, writes that a country once personified by Mahatma Gandhi is fast becoming known for religious hatred and violence. While India remains the world’s largest democracy, the ruling BJP is linked to Hindu extremist groups like the RSS, the Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), which mount hate campaigns and sometimes-violent attacks against religious minorities and demand that Hinduism dominate society and politics. The RSS was founded by admirers of fascism and Nazism, produced Gandhi’s murderers and is now perhaps the world’s largest paramilitary organisation, with millions of members, he adds.


India's political traditions are founded upon liberalism, democracy, and tolerance - but the growth of extremism in that nation threatens those foundations, and threatens to ignite not only internal violence, but also conflict with other nations like Pakistan. There are justifiable concerns about the possibility of Muslim extremists taking over in Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons, but we should have similar concerns about India as well - a country which is much larger, more powerful, and which possess more nuclear weapons than Pakistan.
Look we even have here below an idiot admitting that he/she is Hindu extremist. Btw it doesn’t matter whether he practice the religion because same thing can be said about Muslim extremist, that they are not practicing. What matter is he still doing it in the name of religion. It also doesn’t matter the reasoning behind the extremism because again same thing can be applied to a Muslim extremists like 7/7 where they said they did it because they were sick of the war against Muslim in Iraq and so on.

As a self confessed hindu extremist, who is not even a devout hindu. I am an atheist, (non-practising) hindu who has become an extremist as a REACTION to muslim extremism, as exemplified in kashmir. The so-called crowning glory of Indian secularism. And no my extremism, isnt anti-christain, or anti-sikh, or anti-dalit etc. I hate ONLY muslims, and would like other idiots to point out to me, why I hate ONLY muslims?


I can’t post the link to this information because I got this from an atheist site (from my search), doing so would mean either I am posting anti Islamic site (let face it, there bound to have criticism or negative remarks on Islam) or promoting another “religion” or concept. So sorry I cannot post the link.
Reply

Trumble
07-25-2010, 10:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

They all can't wait though to shed civility for elephant gods, cow dung or men gods.. it is really a conundrum to me..
The only conundrum for me is how one person can be so staggeringly two-faced!

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Indeed in Islam we're asked to question, reflect and seek knowledge .. very difficult to become of age and reason and simply take things at word value!

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
the problem is that they'd have to consider their own beliefs from outside and it might cause them a paradigm shift and that is sure to take them out of their comfort zone.
Or indeed yours, it seems...


format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Have a read at the entire Quran and then come and argue what you know.. what say you?
Well, if you'll forgive me butting in I would say perhaps you might follow your own advice and read, study and thoroughly absorb the Hindu scriptures in their entirety before writing idiotic comments like the one above. And perhaps keep silent on the subject of Hinduism until you have?
Reply

Sister Unknown
07-25-2010, 10:25 PM
Well, if you'll forgive me butting in I would say perhaps you might follow your own advice and read, study and thoroughly absorb the Hindu scriptures in their entirety before writing idiotic comments like the one above. And perhaps keep silent on the subject of Hinduism until you have?
There is no need for that. The Hindu scripture, is the word by?


The historical existence of Muhammad (peace be upon him) is accepted by almost all non-Muslim scholars, including, with few exceptions, the hyper-sceptical ones as well. To give readers a feel of the strength of Muhammad's (peace be upon him) historical existence and its almost universal acceptance, we will provide the example of Patricia Crone, the author of the infamous Hagarism. There have been few as sceptical as Crone in the history and development of Western Islamic studies. In a recent essay entitled, "What do we actually know about Mohammed?", Crone has this to say about the historical existence of Muhammad (peace be upon him):

...we probably know more about Mohammed than we do about Jesus (let alone Moses or the Buddha), and we certainly have the potential to know a great deal more.


She goes on to say:



There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding. His neighbours in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years of his death at the latest; a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and chariot". It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions.



Crone says:



.this [Greek text] source gives us pretty irrefutable evidence that he was an historical figure. Moreover, an Armenian document probably written shortly after 661 identifies him by name and gives a recognisable account of his monotheist preaching.



Moreover:



On the Islamic side, sources dating from the mid-8th century onwards preserve a document drawn up between Mohammed and the inhabitants of Yathrib, which there are good reasons to accept as broadly authentic; Mohammed is also mentioned by name, and identified as a messenger of God, four times in the Qur'an.

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/wh...new_testament_
Reply

جوري
07-25-2010, 10:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
The only conundrum for me is how one person can be so staggeringly two-faced!
How so?





Or indeed yours, it seems...
I have indeed and have written of my agnostic years somewhere here on the forum.. if every person would reexamine their beliefs first hand, perhaps we'd all peddle alot less ignorance?


Well, if you'll forgive me butting in I would say perhaps you might follow your own advice and read, study and thoroughly absorb the Hindu scriptures in their entirety before writing idiotic comments like the one above. And perhaps keep silent on the subject of Hinduism until you have?
There is nothing to forgive, since you don't know how much or how little I know.. I know enough to have a complete aversion to it..
you can share your diligent hyper vigilance when I join a Hindu forum and question them about their book.. you know if you were really interested in commenting on idiotic proper!

all the best
Reply

Trumble
07-26-2010, 12:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
There is nothing to forgive, since you don't know how much or how little I know.. I know enough to have a complete aversion to it..
Or maybe you don't know enough not to have a complete aversion to it? There isn't really any way to tell, is there? I'm afraid a great many people think they 'know enough' about Islam to have a complete aversion to it as well.
Reply

جوري
07-26-2010, 12:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Or maybe you don't know enough not to have a complete aversion to it? There isn't really any way to tell, is there? I'm afraid a great many people think they 'know enough' about Islam to have a complete aversion to it as well.
One can't assess other people's knowledge on such matters.. indeed the 'quest for truth' is a solo journey but as stated prior, if/when I go on a Hindu forum asking them to get out of my face and shove their 'true path' up theirs in as many words as the fellow here has afforded us can you then part with such wisdom..
It doesn't aggrieve nor concern me otherwise how others view Islam and I am personally not going to work over time to change that..

all the best
Reply

bhakti
07-26-2010, 02:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

One can't assess other people's knowledge on such matters.. indeed the 'quest for truth' is a solo journey but as stated prior, if/when I go on a Hindu forum asking them to get out of my face and shove their 'true path' up theirs in as many words as the fellow here has afforded us can you then part with such wisdom..
It doesn't aggrieve nor concern me otherwise how others view Islam and I am personally not going to work over time to change that..

all the best
if 'One can't assess other people's knowledge' then how come there are so many posts criticizing hinduism here? If you feel the need to diss other religions to glorify your own, it only shows a glaring sense of insecurity in your own religion. Note than I never criticized your god or your prophet but only the need you guys feel to always show your way as the 'ONLY TRUE WAY' to doing things.

I clearly mentioned how I'm seeing converters are at every bend of the road and how this attitude inevitably leads to unwanted frustration, anger and religious tension in society culminating in violence (There are even google ads everywhere on the internet calling for conversion for God's sake!). You simply can't deny the fact about Quran being pushed into my face all the time. You can't say 'quit this forum and we won't push Quran at you'. And to express my disgust at this is why I said what I said. However, somehow the people posting on this thread assume 'aggressive conversion' to mean 'conversion by the sword'. Or probably they are doing that coz that is more convenient to refute?

Oh and btw, Hinduism never claims to be the ONLY TRUE WAY. Brahman manifests in different forms to suit the needs of the worshipper is Hindu belief.

btw, so many posts overnight? I really seem to have shook the hornet's nest here. I profusely apologize to those whose sensibilities I might have hurt. But the nonsense spewed forth here about Hinduism, I'm sure you would agree, gives me a free hand to put forth my views too.
Reply

Tyrion
07-26-2010, 02:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
Note than I never criticized your god or your prophet but only the need you guys feel to always show your way as the 'ONLY TRUE WAY' to doing things.
This is something I've never understood.... Of course I believe that Islam is the only true way, that's why I'm a Muslim... If someone knows they have found the true way, then it's only expected that they'll preach it as being the only true way.... Are you saying that you want Muslims to go out and say that they think your beliefs are okay? Because we honestly don't think they are. It's because of this fact that many Muslims partake in Dawah, and if I were you, I would learn to appreciate the efforts they're making, instead of complaining. They're not hurting you, and the fact that they're even trying to share Islam with you means that they care.
Reply

جوري
07-26-2010, 02:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
if 'One can't assess other people's knowledge' then how come there are so many posts criticizing hinduism here? If you feel the need to diss other religions to glorify your own, it only shows a glaring sense of insecurity in your own religion. Note than I never criticized your god or your prophet but only the need you guys feel to always show your way as the 'ONLY TRUE WAY' to doing things.


Well simply scroll back a couple of pages and you'll see that Hinduism wasn't on the map here until your good pal brought it on board.. To me personally, it isn't even a doctrine that is worth another glance, but if your pal brought it up, we can only accommodate him and work with what he has written!

I clearly mentioned how I'm seeing converters are at every bend of the road and how this attitude inevitably leads to unwanted frustration, anger and religious tension in society culminating in violence (There are even google ads everywhere on the internet calling for conversion for God's sake!). You simply can't deny the fact about Quran being pushed into my face all the time. You can't say 'quit this forum and we won't push Quran at you'. And to express my disgust at this is why I said what I said. However, somehow the people posting on this thread assume 'aggressive conversion' to mean 'conversion by the sword'. Or probably they are doing that coz that is more convenient to refute?
And I clearly stated that your own clan are guilty of the same, if you don't like ads or other Muslims or religions in general, then simply walk away, purchase yourself a multi-armed blue god shut your doors to those who come knocking!
Oh and btw, Hinduism never claims to be the ONLY TRUE WAY. Brahman manifests in different forms to suit the needs of the worshipper is Hindu belief.
Good for Hinduism.. then why the forced conversions on others? you must have some strong convictions to force folks into holy dung?

The priest had given them cow dung to eat during the ceremony, they said, telling them it would purify them. 'We were doing that, but we were crying,' Jaspina said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...anity-hinduism

btw, so many posts overnight? I really seem to have shook the hornet's nest here. I profusely apologize to those whose sensibilities I might have hurt. But the nonsense spewed forth here about Hinduism, I'm sure you would agree, gives me a free hand to put forth my views too.
Don't like it here don't be a member here? The solution to your problems are rather simple.. one wonders why you insist on creating issues, are you an attention-seeking narcissist perhaps?

all the best
Reply

bhakti
07-26-2010, 02:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I know enough to have a complete aversion to it..
you can share your diligent hyper vigilance when I join a Hindu forum and question them about their book..
You clearly dont know enough since you are talking about a 'book' here. Hinduism is never as simple as 'here's your book and this is your religion and oh, if you go against this book, you burn in hell'.

The magnanimity of Hinduism is in the fact that even if you diss all scriptures and forget every law or rule, you only need to be completely lost in God consciousness and that is enough. There's no need to follow certain dictats to be a 'TRUE BELIEVER'.

That's the whole point behind the famous 'sarvadharmaan parityajya....' sloka of the Bhagavad Gita which essentially means "Abandon all rules of righteousness and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear."

That is also the point behind the beautiful bhaja govindam song of adi shankaracharya.
Reply

bhakti
07-26-2010, 02:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

Well simply scroll back a couple of pages and you'll see that Hinduism wasn't on the map here until your good pal brought it on board.. To me personally, it isn't even a doctrine that is worth another glance, but if your pal brought it up, we can only accommodate him and work with what he has written!
Simply not true. KV replied with an opinion on Mo. Someone said KV's statements means a God exists. KV clarified with what exactly Advaita Vedanta is about. And someone thought it good to ridicule Advaita and start nitpicking.

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
And I clearly stated that your own clan are guilty of the same, if you don't like ads or other Muslims or religions in general, then simply walk away, purchase yourself a multi-armed blue god shut your doors to those who come knocking!
That's laughable at best. There's no way to escaping Islam ads and copies of Quran. Both you and I know that. And there you go dissing Hindu Gods again. Why the cheapness and the denial in understanding the Gods as beautiful manifestations?

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Good for Hinduism.. then why the forced conversions on others? you must have some strong convictions to force folks into holy dung? The priest had given them cow dung to eat during the ceremony, they said, telling them it would purify them. 'We were doing that, but we were crying,' Jaspina said.
How many times am I to tell you that's a reaction. You are just repearing yourself and I'm bored. Have you read about the previous happenings that instigated these incidents? And Hinduism expressly condemns conversion for this very reason. I would like to hear you say the same about Islam.

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Don't like it here don't be a member here? The solution to your problems are rather simple.. one wonders why you insist on creating issues, are you an attention-seeking narcissist perhaps?
Two facetedness again. You could diss Hinduism coz 'if your pal brought it up, we can only accommodate him'. But when I question your beliefs in response to your nonsense on Hinduism I'm an attention-seeking narcissist. A typical reaction at best.
Reply

جوري
07-26-2010, 03:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
You clearly dont know enough since you are talking about a 'book' here. Hinduism is never as simple as 'here's your book and this is your religion and oh, if you go against this book, you burn in hell'.
akin to a novel in my opinion- and as you have pointed out, there is no guidance therein, so what is the purpose? merely to subscribe to some ailing philosophy even if by force?
The magnanimity of Hinduism is in the fact that even if you diss all scriptures and forget every law or rule, you only need to be completely lost in God consciousness and that is enough. There's no need to follow certain dictats to be a 'TRUE BELIEVER'.
Is this 'God's consciousness' the same one that dictates a caste system and forced conversions in cow dung? Is this how one gets lost in 'God's consciousness'.. is there in fact a point to that?
That's the whole point behind the famous 'sarvadharmaan parityajya....' sloka of the Bhagavad Gita which essentially means "Abandon all rules of righteousness and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear."

When we abandon righteousness then what is left?
That is also the point behind the beautiful bhaja govindam song of adi shankaracharya.
aha.. good to know

all the best
Reply

جوري
07-26-2010, 03:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
Simply not true. KV replied with an opinion on Mo. Someone said KV's statements means a God exists. KV clarified with what exactly Advaita Vedanta is about. And someone thought it good to ridicule Advaita and start nitpicking.
It is in fact quite true, his interjection in post # 77 has set the whole thing in motion. He offered an opinion on what he thought Islam is, as sophomoric as his opinion was and we merely commented on the unbridgeable disparity and complete lack of reconciliation of what he said with the known world!


That's laughable at best. There's no way to escaping Islam ads and copies of Quran. Both you and I know that. And there you go dissing Hindu Gods again. Why the cheapness and the denial in understanding the Gods as beautiful manifestations?
Then gouge your eyes out and damage your ear drums, surely that will bring you closer to your goal? You think bathing in cow dung is a beautiful manifestation of God-- That is up to you, I deign to help no one who can't bestow dignity upon himself!


How many times am I to tell you that's a reaction. You are just repearing yourself and I'm bored. Have you read about the previous happenings that instigated these incidents? And Hinduism expressly condemns conversion for this very reason. I would like to hear you say the same about Islam.
You are in no position to question Islam! unfortunately for you the incidents are too numerous to be swept under some rug and the details are frankly quite disturbing!
If you are bored, then go bathe in cow dung and get closer to your gods consciousness? we are not here for your entertainment- I consider it a waste to engage you all together for more reasons than I care to mention!
Two facetedness again. You could diss Hinduism coz 'if your pal brought it up, we can only accommodate him'. But when I question your beliefs in response to your nonsense on Hinduism I'm an attention-seeking narcissist. A typical reaction at best.
See previous two responses-- Again, how does one reason sensibilities with cow-dung bathing heathens who feign to value principles which they are guilty of breaching?
we are not standing on the same platform, and I don't think enough of you to offer you more than has been offered thus far!

all the best
Reply

bhakti
07-26-2010, 04:10 AM
Oh come on. All you are doing is take cheap shots at me in attempt at scoring brownie points. I am yet to see one calm refutation from your side.

"The Vedas explain that dung from cows is different from all other forms of excrement. Indian culture insists that if one comes in contact with the stool of any other animal, they must immediately take a bath. Even after passing stool oneself, bathing is necessary. But the cow's dung, far from being contaminating, instead possesses antiseptic qualities. This has been verified by modern science. Not only is it free from bacteria, but it also does a good job of killing them. Believe it or not, it is every bit as good an antiseptic as Lysol or Mr. Clean."

See archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/sacred-cow.html

And whats this about bathing in cow dung? lol. That never happens and your claim only reflects the levels you are willing to stoop to in your enthusiasm towards vilifying hinduism. All that I have read that comes anywhere close to your claim is that an extremely small quantity of cow dung used to be mixed with bathing water by the ancients thanks to its antiseptic properties.

Cow dung might sound filthy but its fantastic properties just cannot be disputed.
Reply

جوري
07-26-2010, 04:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
Oh come on. All you are doing is take cheap shots at me in attempt at scoring brownie points. I am yet to see one calm refutation from your side.
you tickle me.. refutation to what exactly?
"The Vedas explain that dung from cows is different from all other forms of excrement. Indian culture insists that if one comes in contact with the stool of any other animal, they must immediately take a bath. Even after passing stool oneself, bathing is necessary. But the cow's dung, far from being contaminating, instead possesses antiseptic qualities. This has been verified by modern science. Not only is it free from bacteria, but it also does a good job of killing them. Believe it or not, it is every bit as good an antiseptic as Lysol or Mr. Clean."
Aha!
I am sure this is hygienic too and safe for children :D


See archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/sacred-cow.html
Thanks, I don't waste time on sacred dung or rats, or multi-armed gods, or semantics to escape the absurdity of it all for that matter!
And whats this about bathing in cow dung? lol. That never happens and your claim only reflects the levels you are willing to stoop to in your enthusiasm towards vilifying hinduism. All that I have read that comes anywhere close to your claim is that an extremely small quantity of cow dung used to be mixed with bathing water by the ancients thanks to its antiseptic properties.
Aha.. I don't need to vilify Hinduism, I have in fact stated before that we are on the same platform, and I don't wish to descend down to sacred cow dung to be one with god!
Cow dung might sound filthy but its fantastic properties just cannot be disputed.
Ok.. and I am sure there are many like minded individuals out there who share your enthusiasm!

all the best
Reply

جوري
07-26-2010, 04:26 AM



he wants me to refute this level of enlightenment!
Reply

Tyrion
07-26-2010, 04:27 AM
This thread seems to have turned into a mini debate about hinduism :p I don't even think bhakti has noticed that I made a comment about one of his earlier posts.
Reply

جوري
07-26-2010, 04:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
This is something I've never understood.... Of course I believe that Islam is the only true way, that's why I'm a Muslim... If someone knows they have found the true way, then it's only expected that they'll preach it as being the only true way.... Are you saying that you want Muslims to go out and say that they think your beliefs are okay? Because we honestly don't think they are. It's because of this fact that many Muslims partake in Dawah, and if I were you, I would learn to appreciate the efforts they're making, instead of complaining. They're not hurting you, and the fact that they're even trying to share Islam with you means that they care.
It is interesting you say that, and I wish I shared that sentiment. I prefer that we have better Muslims than more Muslims (but that is just me).. Also I think it is difficult for many of these individuals to shed their customs when they embrace Islam, as a result they incorporate all kinds of nonsense into religion if they enter it half baked.. I don't mean that Islam is a religion of exclusivity, I merely think we should share Islam with folks who have a willingness to accept wholly and completely, and those that do usually find Islam on their own...

maybe it is my personal prejudices but I don't see how da3wa can work with folks that steeped in ignorance, superstitions and bizarre customs?..

anyway on this note I call it a night..
:w:
Reply

bhakti
07-26-2010, 05:12 AM
more nonsense. Every post you make magnifies your ignorance of Hinduism, the vales lily.

Do you think you can generalize ignorance based on the beliefs of a few tribals in a remote corner of India? Let's extend the same logic and call every muslim a terrorist, shall we?



Reply

bhakti
07-26-2010, 05:13 AM
more nonsense. Every post you make magnifies your ignorance of Hinduism, the vales lily.

Do you think you can generalize Hinduism based on the beliefs of a few tribals in a remote corner of India? Let's extend the same logic and call every muslim a terrorist, shall we?



Reply

bhakti
07-26-2010, 05:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


It is interesting you say that, and I wish I shared that sentiment. I prefer that we have better Muslims than more Muslims (but that is just me).. Also I think it is difficult for many of these individuals to shed their customs when they embrace Islam, as a result they incorporate all kinds of nonsense into religion if they enter it half baked.. I don't mean that Islam is a religion of exclusivity, I merely think we should share Islam with folks who have a willingness to accept wholly and completely, and those that do usually find Islam on their own...

maybe it is my personal prejudices but I don't see how da3wa can work with folks that steeped in ignorance, superstitions and bizarre customs?..

anyway on this note I call it a night..
:w:
Beautiful post. Couldnt agree more. It is impossible to understand another religion unless you spend a lifetime studying it. Conversion has ALWAYS led to violence, intolerance and angst. History stands as undeniable proof. Faith is subjective, period.
Reply

Tyrion
07-26-2010, 05:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


It is interesting you say that, and I wish I shared that sentiment. I prefer that we have better Muslims than more Muslims (but that is just me).. Also I think it is difficult for many of these individuals to shed their customs when they embrace Islam, as a result they incorporate all kinds of nonsense into religion if they enter it half baked.. I don't mean that Islam is a religion of exclusivity, I merely think we should share Islam with folks who have a willingness to accept wholly and completely, and those that do usually find Islam on their own...

maybe it is my personal prejudices but I don't see how da3wa can work with folks that steeped in ignorance, superstitions and bizarre customs?..

anyway on this note I call it a night..
:w:
I actually agree with you for the most part, which is why I typically leave the Da'wa to others... But I still thought I should point out to bhakti the absurd nature of his complaints...

Anyway, since I've got your attention I should take a moment to thank you for your participation in this thread, as well as your other posts in this forum. I haven't been active on this forum until very recently, but I have spent quite a bit of time looking through old threads and your posts have helped me a lot in the past. Just wanted to let you know that your efforts are much appreciated.


format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
Beautiful post. Couldnt agree more. It is impossible to understand another religion unless you spend a lifetime studying it. Conversion has ALWAYS led to violence, intolerance and angst. History stands as undeniable proof. Faith is subjective, period.
Really now?
Reply

Trumble
07-26-2010, 07:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

maybe it is my personal prejudices but I don't see how da3wa can work with folks that steeped in ignorance, superstitions and bizarre customs?..
Of course it's your personal prejudices. We all have them! But surely you must see many people consider Islam 'ignorance, superstitions and bizarre customs?'? Or Buddhism, or whatever; both people who follow no religion or those unable or unwilling to vacate that 'comfort zone' you were talking about.
Reply

Ramadhan
07-26-2010, 07:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Of course it's your personal prejudices. We all have them! But surely you must see many people consider Islam 'ignorance, superstitions and bizarre customs?'? Or Buddhism, or whatever; both people who follow no religion or those unable or unwilling to vacate that 'comfort zone' you were talking about.
Ah, finally I found trumble here between all the posts.

I wish you'd answered me as to why you agreed with statement few days ago in this thread that affirms in the existence of god, knowing that you don't believe god exists.
This is very intriguing for me to see such development.
Reply

Insaanah
07-26-2010, 10:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
You simply can't deny the fact about Quran being pushed into my face all the time. You can't say 'quit this forum and we won't push Quran at you'.
We can see straight through your childish games here of asking about the Qur'an, then getting a reply and then claiming the Qur'an has been thrown in your face. None of us threw it in your face, you asked for it in your first post. Oh, the innocent "victim"!

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
And to express my disgust at this is why I said what I said. However, somehow the people posting on this thread assume 'aggressive conversion' to mean 'conversion by the sword'. Or probably they are doing that coz that is more convenient to refute?
Ah, and we see at Dr Zakir Naik's conferences people being forced to convert, do we? In actual fact, many Hindus there come to learn; some revert, some simply learn about Islam, and learn more about what their own scriptures state that they weren't aware of before, but don't revert.

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
btw, so many posts overnight? I really seem to have shook the hornet's nest here. I profusely apologize to those whose sensibilities I might have hurt.
Sorry to disappoint, but you haven't shaken any nest nor hurt anyone. If anything, we find your childish antics somewhat bemusing!

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
You clearly dont know enough since you are talking about a 'book' here. Hinduism is never as simple as 'here's your book and this is your religion and oh, if you go against this book, you burn in hell'.
Stick to Hindusim then. No one's forcing you.

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
The magnanimity of Hinduism is in the fact that even if you diss all scriptures and forget every law or rule, you only need to be completely lost in God consciousness and that is enough. There's no need to follow certain dictats to be a 'TRUE BELIEVER'.
Good for you. Stick to it then. Nobody is forcing you to accept Islam.

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
How many times am I to tell you that's a reaction. You are just repearing yourself and I'm bored. .[/B]
No one's forcing you to be here and to experience such utter boredom. I'm sure you must have better things to do with your time.

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
Have you read about the previous happenings that instigated these incidents? And Hinduism expressly condemns conversion for this very reason. I would like to hear you say the same about Islam.
Ah, so if conversion is condemned one cannot become a Hindu? Islam is welcoming to everyone. Black, white or brown, if you revert, you are as true a Muslim as one who was born a Muslim.

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
Oh come on. All you are doing is take cheap shots at me in attempt at scoring brownie points. I am yet to see one calm refutation from your side.
You conveniently have chosen not to see them.

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
Do you think you can generalize ignorance based on the beliefs of a few tribals in a remote corner of India? Let's extend the same logic and call every muslim a terrorist, shall we?
You have already called Muslims as those throwing the Quran in peoples' faces and forcing aggressive conversions. You just don't see that you have already extended the same logic many times over and in many posts!

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
Conversion has ALWAYS led to violence, intolerance and angst.
It might do in Hindusim, but not in Islam, thank Allah.

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
History stands as undeniable proof.
It certainly does. How many faiths lived in complete security under Muslim rule, in Spain, in Jerusalem and in India (as mentioned by syed_z in a previous post), to mention but a few.

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
Faith is subjective,
Let's go back and see if that applies to your first posts in this thread, shall we? It either is or it isn't.

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
period.
I hope you mean that.

Peace.
Reply

Trumble
07-26-2010, 12:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
I wish you'd answered me as to why you agreed with statement few days ago in this thread that affirms in the existence of god, knowing that you don't believe god exists.
This is very intriguing for me to see such development.
I did, post #47. I've just edited it only to highlight some text.
Reply

جوري
07-26-2010, 12:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
more nonsense. Every post you make magnifies your ignorance of Hinduism, the vales lily.

Do you think you can generalize ignorance based on the beliefs of a few tribals in a remote corner of India? Let's extend the same logic and call every muslim a terrorist, shall we?



From what you have shared so far we need to go no further.. besides, why do you need me to validate your beliefs for you?.. if you are happy with what you have presented or what is known of your ideology, then continue on that same path and frankly buzz off?

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
more nonsense. Every post you make magnifies your ignorance of Hinduism, the vales lily.

Do you think you can generalize Hinduism based on the beliefs of a few tribals in a remote corner of India? Let's extend the same logic and call every muslim a terrorist, shall we?



see previous response.. you know some posts are superfluous and are intended more as a cathartic than meaningful words -- that has been in fact most of what you have written here, but at some point it comes down to taking up bandwidth on nonsense!
feel free to call every Muslim a terrorist by the way, you have my full approval!

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
Beautiful post. Couldnt agree more. It is impossible to understand another religion unless you spend a lifetime studying it. Conversion has ALWAYS led to violence, intolerance and angst. History stands as undeniable proof. Faith is subjective, period.
Indeed, I only need to look at what you have done to christian and Muslim groups to understand the depth of your zealousness.. one wishes it were for something more worthwhile, than heathenism, rats and dung though!

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Of course it's your personal prejudices. We all have them! But surely you must see many people consider Islam 'ignorance, superstitions and bizarre customs?'? Or Buddhism, or whatever; both people who follow no religion or those unable or unwilling to vacate that 'comfort zone' you were talking about.
Trumble, surely you must know that 'tolerance' doesn't mean espousal of other people's ideas or lulling them into the comfort of believing that their customs/ideals/beliefs are somehow worth our approval for the mere purpose of having our own religion tolerated.. firstly, they are in fact intolerant and have shown so repeatedly and secondly, patent falsehood and failed philosophies needs to be pointed out isn't that in a sense why you are here, to 'debunk' Islamic falsehood, thirdly their beliefs are a danger to themselves and to others, if nothing else at all for the mere spread of disease and the plague through excrement and rats if not downright reactive forced conversions of which the fellow here is so eager to pin on others!


Political correctness can only take you so far, if others are willing to live tolerant of others no more no less than that, then that is more than welcome, and if it isn't the case then let it be an all out war!

all the best
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-26-2010, 03:08 PM
Lily considers cow dung to be about the worst thing that can happen to anyone, never mind Bhakti's exposition on its medicinal value. I wonder if he is aware that Mohammad had highly recommended camel’s urine for its medicinal properties. Similarly, Muslims condemn idol worship but are unable to explain why Mohammad kissed the black stone in Kaaba and even today Muslims follow suit when they visit Mecca. Many of the rituals followed in Mecca during the Hajj are done at no other mosque anywhere in the world at any time but at every Hindu temple all over the world every day. It would only be fair that Muslims respect Hinduism a bit more for, if nothing, Hinduism is an older religion than Islam. Is it not a tradition in the East to respect the elders?
Reply

Insaanah
07-26-2010, 03:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Similarly, Muslims condemn idol worship but are unable to explain why Mohammad kissed the black stone in Kaaba and even today Muslims follow suit when they visit Mecca. Many of the rituals followed in Mecca during the Hajj are done at no other mosque anywhere in the world at any time but at every Hindu temple all over the world every day.
When Islam is against idol worship why do the Muslims worship, and bow down to the Kaaba in their prayer?

Answer:

Kaaba is the Qibla i.e. the direction Muslims face during their prayers. It is important to note that though Muslims face the Kaaba during prayers, they do not worship the Kaaba. Muslims worship and bow to none but Allah.

It is mentioned in Surah Baqarah:

“We see the turning of thy face (for guidance) to the heavens: now shall We turn thee to a Qiblah that shall please thee. Turn then thy face in the direction of the Sacred Mosque: wherever ye are, turn your faces in that direction.” [Al-Qur’an 2:144]

1. Islam believes in fostering unity
For instance, if Muslims want to offer Salaah (Prayer), it is possible that some may wish to face north, while some may wish to face south. In order to unite Muslims in their worship of the One True God, Muslims, wherever they may be, are asked to face in only one direction i.e. towards the Kaaba. If some Muslims live towards the west of the Kaaba they face the east. Similarly if they live towards the east of the Kaaba they face the west.

2. Kaaba is at the Centre of the World Map
The Muslims were the first people to draw the map of the world. They drew the map with the south facing upwards and north downwards. The Kaaba was at the centre. Later, western cartographers drew the map upside down with the north facing upwards and south downwards. Yet, Alhamdullilah the Kaaba is at the centre of the world map.

3. Tawaaf around Kaaba for indicating one God
When the Muslims go to Masjid-e-Haram in Makkah, they perform tawaaf or circumambulation round the Kaaba. This act symbolizes the belief and worship of One God, since, just as every circle has one centre, so also there is only one Allah (swt) worthy of worship.

4. Hadith of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him)
Regarding the black stone, hajr-e-aswad, there is a hadith (tradition), attributed to the illustrious companion of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), Umar (may Allah be pleased with him).
According to Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, book of Hajj, chapter 56, H.No. 675. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit nor harm. Had I not seen the Prophet (pbuh) touching (and kissing) you, I would never have touched (and kissed) you”.

5. People stood on Kaaba and gave the adhaan
At the time of the Prophet, people even stood on the Kaaba and gave the ‘adhaan’ or the call to prayer. One may ask those who allege that Muslims worship the Kaaba; which idol worshipper stands on the idol he worships?

Peace.
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-26-2010, 03:25 PM
May I also add that Islam started with Mohammad going up the mountains, meditating and discovering his higher consciousness, just as Hindus do even now? Maybe if Islam encouraged meditation, it too, like Hinduism, would have declared that there are many ways to God.
Reply

bhakti
07-26-2010, 03:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Indeed, I only need to look at what you have done to christian and Muslim groups to understand the depth of your zealousness..
Here's some readin material for you: stephen-knapp.com/christian_persecution_in_india.htm

and this too: hindu.com/2008/11/22/stories/2008112255220600.htm

and this: pakistaniat.com/2006/10/11/pakistan-hindu-temple-karachi/

Oh and do I have to copy paste church bombings in Malaysia by the Muslims? Lik I have said before, I can copy paste a million examples of Islamic violence. However, that proves nothing.

Zakir Naik freely preaches Islam in India. Do you have any idea what would happen if a Hindu did that in, say, Saudi Arabia?

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
one wishes it were for something more worthwhile, than heathenism, rats and dung though!
Come on..show some class.

"The apparent multiplication of gods is bewildering at the first glance, but you soon discover that they are the same GOD. There is always one uttermost God who defies personification. This makes Hinduism the most tolerant religion in the world, because its one transcendent God includes all possible gods. In fact Hinduism is so elastic and so subtle that the most profound Methodist, and crudest idolater, are equally at home with it. Indian philosophers' subtleties make most of the great European philosophers look like schoolboys." George Bernard Shaw" - George Bernard Shaw

"After a study of some forty years and more of the great religions of the world, I find none so perfect , none so scientific, none so philosophical and none so spiritual that the great religion known by the name of Hinduism. Make no mistake, without Hinduism, India has no future. Hinduism is the soil in to which India's roots are stuck and torn out of that she will inevitably wither as a tree torn out from its place. And if Hindus do not maintain Hinduism who shall save it? If India's own children do not cling to her faith who shall guard it. India alone can save India and India and Hinduism are one." - Annie Besant

"India had the start of the whole world in the beginning of things. She had the first civilization; she had the first accumulation of material wealth; she was populous with deep thinkers and subtle intellects; she had mines, and woods, and a fruitful soul.Our most valuable and most instructive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India." - Mark Twain

"Access to the Vedas is the greatest privilege this century may claim over all previous centuries" - Robert Oppenheimer

"Compared to Islam and Christianity, Hinduism’s doctrines are extraordinarily fluid, and multiform. India deals in images and metaphors. Restless, subtle and argumentative as Hindu thought is, it is less prone than European theology to the vice of distorting transcendental ideas by too stringent definition. It adumbrates the indescribable by metaphors and figures. It is not afraid of inconsistencies which may illustrate different aspects of the infinite, but it rarely tries to cramp the divine within the limits of a logical phrase." - Sir Charles Elliot

"To the philosophers of India, however, Relativity is no new discovery, just as the concept of light years is no matter for astonishment to people used to thinking of time in millions of kalpas, (A kalpa is about 4,320,000 years). The fact that the wise men of India have not been concerned with technological applications of this knowledge arises from the circumstance that technology is but one of innumerable ways of applying it." - Alan Watts

"In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial" - Henry David Thoreau

"
I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad-Gita. It was as if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same questions which exercise us." - Ralph Emerson

"India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages: she was the mother of our philosophy; mother, through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics; mother, through the Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all. Nothing should more deeply shame the modern student than the recency and inadequacy of his acquaintance with India....This is the India that patient scholarship is now opening up like a new intellectual continent to that Western mind which only yesterday thought civilization an exclusive Western thing." - Will Durant


Whose words carry more weight? Yours or those of these great men and women?
Reply

جوري
07-26-2010, 03:39 PM

format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Lily considers cow dung to be about the worst thing that can happen to anyone, never mind Bhakti's exposition on its medicinal value. I wonder if he is aware that Mohammad had highly recommended camel’s urine for its medicinal properties. Similarly, Muslims condemn idol worship but are unable to explain why Mohammad kissed the black stone in Kaaba and even today Muslims follow suit when they visit Mecca. Many of the rituals followed in Mecca during the Hajj are done at no other mosque anywhere in the world at any time but at every Hindu temple all over the world every day. It would only be fair that Muslims respect Hinduism a bit more for, if nothing, Hinduism is an older religion than Islam. Is it not a tradition in the East to respect the elders?
camel urine isn't used as a religious ritual to get closer to the gods, anymore than pregnant mare urine (premarin) or postmenopausal urine commercially available Humegon (Organon), HMG Massone (Massone), Metrodin (Serono), Metrodin HP (Serono), Pergonal (Serono) and Progonadyl (Elea) are used as an initiation right to get into gods consciousness. What it is used like the two other preparations are medicinal reasons.
Whether the black stone exists or not has no bearing on the religion of Islam, and in fact if you have strained so hard to find a morsel to dig your teeth into, you'd have learned that, the black stone holds no value whatsoever going back to the days of the prophet. What it does count for is a starting point around the kaaba so folks can keep track of their journey around, as you may know a circle has no beginning as such the stone can serve as a starting point for the count!


I can accept that this is an ideology or religion you love, but I don't have to be ok with it dung, rats and all!
all the best
Reply

جوري
07-26-2010, 03:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
May I also add that Islam started with Mohammad going up the mountains, meditating and discovering his higher consciousness, just as Hindus do even now? Maybe if Islam encouraged meditation, it too, like Hinduism, would have declared that there are many ways to God.
That is a belief that you hold and you are so entitled, but that isn't a belief that Muslims hold.

The Noble Quran already nullifies your beliefs with regard to islam and leaves you with something to ponder:


مَا اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ مِنْ وَلَدٍ وَمَا كَانَ مَعَهُ مِنْ إِلَٰهٍ ۚ إِذًا لَذَهَبَ كُلُّ إِلَٰهٍ بِمَا خَلَقَ وَلَعَلَا بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ ۚ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ {91}
[Pickthal 23:91] Allah hath not chosen any son, nor is there any god along with Him; else would each god have assuredly championed that which he created, and some of them would assuredly have overcome others. Glorified be Allah above all that they allege.

A god for rain and a god for drought, a god for harvest, a god for famine, would they get along? If that is the result of meditation then how pitiable!

all the best
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-26-2010, 04:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
When Islam is against idol worship why do the Muslims worship, and bow down to the Kaaba in their prayer?
Muslims claim they are against idol worship. The irony is that Hindus, who are well known idol worshippers, can grow out of their idol worship by moving from duality to non-duality. Muslims are incapable of being anything other than idol worshipers for they consider Allah to be separate from them and therefore an objective reality to their subjective reality. Idol worship is nothing other than the worship of an object (anything that is outside us, the subject, is an object). The need for worship itself ends only when the subject is discovered.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
Regarding the black stone, hajr-e-aswad, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit nor harm. Had I not seen the Prophet (pbuh) touching (and kissing) you, I would never have touched (and kissed) you”.
Obviously Umar did not know what Mohammad knew.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
People stood on Kaaba and gave the adhaan. At the time of the Prophet, people even stood on the Kaaba and gave the ‘adhaan’ or the call to prayer. One may ask those who allege that Muslims worship the Kaaba; which idol worshipper stands on the idol he worships?
The practice of standing atop the Kaaba was only at the beginning of Islam, when probably in the first flush of having destroyed the idols within the Kaaba, the Muslims wanted to express that nothing made of stone is sacred anymore. But someone obviously considered the blackstone sacred and even today is revered with a kiss and no one today stands atop the Kaaba because it houses the sacred blackstone as it once housed over 360 idols.

Muslims say that whatever they do, they only worship Allah, nothing and no one else. But is it not a fact that in a Hadith Mohammad said that even sex is worship if done properly? So though Muslims worship only Allah, it is not as if this worship does not extend to other activities in day-to-day living. This is precisely the position of the Hindus. Though they worship the ultimate, they have the liberty to focus their worship on tangible representations of the ultimate.
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-26-2010, 04:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Whether the black stone exists or not has no bearing on the religion of Islam .. the black stone holds no value whatsoever going back to the days of the prophet. What it does count for is a starting point around the kaaba so folks can keep track of their journey around, as you may know a circle has no beginning as such the stone can serve as a starting point for the count!
Lily, are you a "Quran only" Muslim? Don't you know that the blackstone was once of the purest white colour while in heaven and it became black after it was installed in Kaaba because it started absorbing the sins of the Muslims? Also, don't you know that on the day of Judgement, the balckstone will testify the sincerity of believers? The blackstone obviously means a lot to the Muslims because when Kaaba was attacked and the blackstone stone taken away, it was retrieved and the stone, which was then broken, was banded together to remain intact. Don't let the blackstone hear you say it is a valueless thing. Or has it already heard you?
Reply

جوري
07-26-2010, 04:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Lily, are you a "Quran only" Muslim? Don't you know that the blackstone was once of the purest white colour while in heaven and it became black after it was installed in Kaaba because it started absorbing the sins of the Muslims? Also, don't you know that on the day of Judgement, the balckstone will testify the sincerity of believers? The blackstone obviously means a lot to the Muslims because when Kaaba was attacked and the blackstone stone taken away, it was retrieved and the stone, which was then broken, was banded together to remain intact? Don't let the blackstone hear you say it is a valueless thing. Or has it already heard you?
I am not a Quran only Muslim, but I challenge you to bring me the hadith or Quranic verse that states that the black stone is of utmost value to Muslims and no more than I afore mentioned!

I'll be waiting!

all the best
Reply

bhakti
07-26-2010, 04:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I can accept that this is an ideology or religion you love, but I don't have to be ok with it dung, rats and all!
all the best
come on....again the dung n rats thing! :)

Please dont denigrate an entire religion by focusing on a few peripheral aspects. Dig deeper into the core values and ideals. This is a very humble request. I like you and like your loyalty towards Islam. I love muslims, MAKE NO MISTAKE. The kind of concentrated bhakti/devotion you have towards Allah is remarkable. I only dont approve of 'hell for unbelievers' and 'conversion' be it Hindu or Muslim coz it invariably leads to unfortunate build up of communal tension in the community of the converted. I have a really good Muslim friend and he's an awesomely cool guy to hang out with n all, believe it or not!

My entire outburst (that I even repent, but only a little :) )was because someone sonehow found it okay to criticize the Vedantic views with absolutely no understanding of the concept of Idol worship etc.

nyways, I'm off for now my friend. Need to catch a late night movie :)
Reply

aadil77
07-26-2010, 05:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
It would only be fair that Muslims respect Hinduism a bit more for, if nothing, Hinduism is an older religion than Islam. Is it not a tradition in the East to respect the elders?
Just to clarify, hindu's seem to bring up that point quite alot, well its false - islam was around since the first man on earth - prophet Adam and he was a muslim. The first set of beliefs and religion on earth was islamic monotheism. Islam has always been around its just been given different names because of location and because of different prophets who preached it.
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-26-2010, 05:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I am not a Quran only Muslim, but I challenge you to bring me the hadith or Quranic verse that states that the black stone is of utmost value to Muslims and no more than I afore mentioned!
What about Mohammad's hair, which is venerated in a mosque in Kashmir? Would you tell me that it is not important till I quote a Hadith or a Quranic verse on its importance? When it was stolen many years back, there were major riots in Kashmir and protests in other parts of India. Fortunately it was retrieved before long and peace returned.
Reply

M.I.A.
07-26-2010, 05:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Lily, are you a "Quran only" Muslim? Don't you know that the blackstone was once of the purest white colour while in heaven and it became black after it was installed in Kaaba because it started absorbing the sins of the Muslims? Also, don't you know that on the day of Judgement, the balckstone will testify the sincerity of believers? The blackstone obviously means a lot to the Muslims because when Kaaba was attacked and the blackstone stone taken away, it was retrieved and the stone, which was then broken, was banded together to remain intact. Don't let the blackstone hear you say it is a valueless thing. Or has it already heard you?
i dont get it,
you have more knowlage of islam then i do but in your posts you make it a point to introduce fallacy....which even i can understand clearly,without even having to know the history of my religion....its very odd.
Reply

aadil77
07-26-2010, 05:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
What about Mohammad's hair, which is venerated in a mosque in Kashmir? Would you tell me that it is not important till I quote a Hadith or a Quranic verse on its importance? When it was stolen many years back, there were major riots in Kashmir and protests in other parts of India. Fortunately it was retrieved before long and peace returned.
No it is not important, there is no proof for the authenticity of those relics so they should not be venerated, its just unfortunate that some asian muslims can cause riots over things such as celebrating the prophets birthday and his hair when there is no islamic proof for any of them.
Reply

Insaanah
07-26-2010, 05:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Muslims claim they are against idol worship. The irony is that Hindus, who are well known idol worshippers, can grow out of their idol worship by moving from duality to non-duality.
Non-Duality being, if I am correct, that "Brahman is the only truth, the world is an illusion, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all Being."

I see you consider yourself and everything in the world divine. So you could worship anything then. Even a lump of faeces must be divine, no? Hey, you could even worship yourself!

"In the Rig Veda, Brahman gives rise to the primordial being Hiranyagarbha that is equated with the creator god Brahmā"

So your god is created; Allah isn't.

Say: He is Allah, the One!
Allah, the Eternally Besought of all!
He begetteth not nor was begotten
And there is none comparable unto Him. (Qur'an, chapter 112)

format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Muslims are incapable of being anything other than idol worshipers for they consider Allah to be separate from them and therefore an objective reality to their subjective reality. Idol worship is nothing other than the worship of an object (anything that is outside us, the subject, is an object). The need for worship itself ends only when the subject is discovered.
The problem is you are defining God as the only way you have been taught; a created object. You may consider your "God "to be an object. We don't. And kindly refrain from calling us idol worshippers. We are not the ones who worship in front of statues that humans have made with their own hands! Allah is Eternal, not created, He is the Creator who Created us, and we worship Him alone. We don't have a god for this and a god for that. We worship the One True All Powerful Lord of all.

format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
The practice of standing atop the Kaaba was only at the beginning of Islam, when probably in the first flush of having destroyed the idols within the Kaaba, the Muslims wanted to express that nothing made of stone is sacred anymore. But someone obviously considered the blackstone sacred and even today is revered with a kiss and no one today stands atop the Kaaba because it houses the sacred blackstone as it once housed over 360 idols.
Bring me a quote that says it is sacred or that we worship it.

format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
But is it not a fact that in a Hadith Mohammad said that even sex is worship if done properly?
NO.

format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
This is precisely the position of the Hindus. Though they worship the ultimate, they have the liberty to focus their worship on tangible representations of the ultimate.
Like the ones I mentioned above in my second paragraph?

Peace.
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-26-2010, 05:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
Just to clarify, hindu's seem to bring up that point quite alot, well its false - islam was around since the first man on earth - prophet Adam and he was a muslim. The first set of beliefs and religion on earth was islamic monotheism. Islam has always been around its just been given different names because of location and because of different prophets who preached it.
I thought Islam began with Mohammad and that about makes it among the newest religions in the world. Are you, by the way, saying that Adam and Eve were Muslims? Can anyone be a Muslim without believing that Mohammad is the last prophet? Is that not why the Ahmadiyas are not considered Muslims because it is alleged that they do not believe in the finality of prophethood with Mohammad?
Reply

جوري
07-26-2010, 05:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
What about Mohammad's hair, which is venerated in a mosque in Kashmir? Would you tell me that it is not important till I quote a Hadith or a Quranic verse on its importance? When it was stolen many years back, there were major riots in Kashmir and protests in other parts of India. Fortunately it was retrieved before long and peace returned.
Muhammad (PBUH)'s hair? how did the kaqshmerians or anyone before them get their hands on that? I doubt very much that anyone has the messengers hair.. just myth like the shroud of turin!
indeed, if it isn't in the kitab and sunnah then it has no importance, that is in fact how you should loan your opinions credence no?.. frankly this is the first time I have even heard of this.. Islam doesn't rest on silly relics and articles of clothing..

funny stuff though..

all the best
Reply

Zafran
07-26-2010, 06:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
I thought Islam began with Mohammad and that about makes it among the newest religions in the world. Are you, by the way, saying that Adam and Eve were Muslims? Can anyone be a Muslim without believing that Mohammad is the last prophet? Is that not why the Ahmadiyas are not considered Muslims because it is alleged that they do not believe in the finality of prophethood with Mohammad?
Salaam

Islam is the oldest religion - It was the religion of Adam pbuh - all the rest is preety irrelevent. Islam is based on the speech of God which is the Quran - To deny any part of it such as the finality of the prophet is kufr.

peace
Reply

Salahudeen
07-26-2010, 06:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
What about Mohammad's hair, which is venerated in a mosque in Kashmir? Would you tell me that it is not important till I quote a Hadith or a Quranic verse on its importance? When it was stolen many years back, there were major riots in Kashmir and protests in other parts of India. Fortunately it was retrieved before long and peace returned.
So what? Just because a Muslim does a certain act doesn't mean Islam condones it and approves of it. Our religion is what's in the Qur'an and authentic hadith. So don't bring us the actions of people. The sources for our religion are the Qur'an and authentic sunnah.

If you say something is apart of this religion of Islam then you should prove it with the Qur'an and sunnah. And then listen to the explanation :)

A
Reply

cat eyes
07-26-2010, 06:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Lily considers cow dung to be about the worst thing that can happen to anyone, never mind Bhakti's exposition on its medicinal value. I wonder if he is aware that Mohammad had highly recommended camel’s urine for its medicinal properties. Similarly, Muslims condemn idol worship but are unable to explain why Mohammad kissed the black stone in Kaaba and even today Muslims follow suit when they visit Mecca. Many of the rituals followed in Mecca during the Hajj are done at no other mosque anywhere in the world at any time but at every Hindu temple all over the world every day. It would only be fair that Muslims respect Hinduism a bit more for, if nothing, Hinduism is an older religion than Islam. Is it not a tradition in the East to respect the elders?
when people kiss that stone there not worshiping it. have u ever witnessed any one bowing down to that stone??

we muslims don't believe this stone is Allah like how your people believe blue dolls with 8arms are gods.
Reply

aadil77
07-26-2010, 06:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
I thought Islam began with Mohammad and that about makes it among the newest religions in the world. Are you, by the way, saying that Adam and Eve were Muslims? Can anyone be a Muslim without believing that Mohammad is the last prophet? Is that not why the Ahmadiyas are not considered Muslims because it is alleged that they do not believe in the finality of prophethood with Mohammad?
The religion of Allah on earth began with the first man created - prophet Adam, prophet Adam and Hawa (Eve) were obviously muslims - they submitted themselves to god. You are a muslim by following the Law of Allah revealed to you at the time of any prophet, so if you were around at the time of prophet Jesus - to be true believer you'd have to accept him and all previous prophets as messengers of Allah.

Allah has introduced new laws as prophets have come and gone, with prophet Muhammad we have to accept him as the last and final messenger because that is the Law of Allah, laws can be added but the religion of Allah is still the same
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-27-2010, 04:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
The religion of Allah on earth began with the first man created - prophet Adam, prophet Adam and Hawa (Eve) were obviously muslims - they submitted themselves to god. You are a muslim by following the Law of Allah revealed to you at the time of any prophet, so if you were around at the time of prophet Jesus - to be true believer you'd have to accept him and all previous prophets as messengers of Allah.

Allah has introduced new laws as prophets have come and gone, with prophet Muhammad we have to accept him as the last and final messenger because that is the Law of Allah, laws can be added but the religion of Allah is still the same
You are saying that after Mohammad came there is no religion valid except Islam. It appears that Allah decided to send the Quran because all the previous scriptures He sent became corrupted either because of Allah's incompetence or because man decided to add or subtract from those scriptures. Finally Allah has said that anyone who does not follow His last scripture will be punished. Could Allah not have made His creatures accept His scriptures without fear of punishment or desire of rewards?
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-27-2010, 04:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by cat eyes
when people kiss that stone there not worshiping it. have u ever witnessed any one bowing down to that stone??

we muslims don't believe this stone is Allah like how your people believe blue dolls with 8arms are gods
You keep saying that you don't worship anything but Allah. But you appear to be needing innumerable conditions to worship Allah, right from a particular direction to a particular format. The logic is that if the worship is nothing other than Allah, then directly worshiping Him without any conditions would be the order. But of course, all of us need many aids towards worship because we are all in a limited body with limited senses. However, the aids that Muslims use, including the carpet, the looking into their own palms are valid but when Hindus use similar aids, including "dolls", that is condemned. We are all in one boat. The only people who are on shore are those who do not see God outside them but one with their own consciousness. Such people do not need worship at all. Hinduism is home to those who have reached the shore.
Reply

Tyrion
07-27-2010, 05:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
You keep saying that you don't worship anything but Allah. But you appear to be needing innumerable conditions to worship Allah, right from a particular direction to a particular format. The logic is that if the worship is nothing other than Allah, then directly worshiping Him without any conditions would be the order. But of course, all of us need many aids towards worship because we are all in a limited body with limited senses. However, the aids that Muslims use, including the carpet, the looking into their own palms are valid but when Hindus use similar aids, including "dolls", that is condemned. We are all in one boat. The only people who are on shore are those who do not see God outside them but one with their own consciousness. Such people do not need worship at all. Hinduism is home to those who have reached the shore.
Just thought I'd drop by and remind you guys that the original question was why exactly you reject Islam, the Qur'an, and The prophet-hood of Muhammad. I'd appreciate it if we could end the Hinduism vs. Islam debate that's going on, since it really doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Perhaps you could make a new thread if you really want to continue debating, but I think it's best if we go back to the original question. Thanks. :)
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-27-2010, 05:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by squiggle
So what? Just because a Muslim does a certain act doesn't mean Islam condones it and approves of it. Our religion is what's in the Qur'an and authentic hadith. So don't bring us the actions of people. The sources for our religion are the Qur'an and authentic sunnah.

If you say something is apart of this religion of Islam then you should prove it with the Qur'an and sunnah. And then listen to the explanation :)
I think your position, which I am aware is the position of most Muslims, is indeed fair. But when I read the Quran I notice that in every alternate page there's Allah either bragging (sorry for using this word but I think it is apt) about His prowess or threatening us with punishment if we do not follow Him. What violence in a book of peace, I have often wondered. And Allah seems to have limited Himself to the Quran for there are no other scriptures wherein the voice of Allah is heard, regardless of the claim of the Muslims that Allah sent down all the previous scriptures. And sadly, Allah stopped speaking after the 7th century. The bottom-line is, if you want to hear Allah, listen to the Quran. Nowhere else will you hear Him. Thus I say that Allah has been confined to the Quran. A very unlikely situation for God.
Reply

Hiroshi
07-27-2010, 09:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
The religion of Allah on earth began with the first man created - prophet Adam, prophet Adam and Hawa (Eve) were obviously muslims - they submitted themselves to god.
Weren't they created first in heaven and then sent to the earth as punishment after sinning? I guess you must believe that there are animals in heaven because Adam was speaking the names of all the animals before he sinned, right?
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-27-2010, 10:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Weren't they created first in heaven and then sent to the earth as punishment after sinning? I guess you must believe that there are animals in heaven because Adam was speaking the names of all the animals before he sinned, right?
Was the Garden of Eden in heaven?
Reply

aadil77
07-27-2010, 11:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
You are saying that after Mohammad came there is no religion valid except Islam. It appears that Allah decided to send the Quran because all the previous scriptures He sent became corrupted either because of Allah's incompetence or because man decided to add or subtract from those scriptures.
Because man altered them, by Allahs will

Finally Allah has said that anyone who does not follow His last scripture will be punished. Could Allah not have made His creatures accept His scriptures without fear of punishment or desire of rewards
What do you think? human nature is we'll usually only to do things if there are consequences of our actions,

this is why you hardly get any practicing christians today - apparently they're already forgiven for their sins for they don't fear any punishment of god
Reply

aadil77
07-27-2010, 11:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Weren't they created first in heaven and then sent to the earth as punishment after sinning?
yh so?

I guess you must believe that there are animals in heaven because Adam was speaking the names of all the animals before he sinned, right?
what are you talking about?
Reply

aadil77
07-27-2010, 11:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Was the Garden of Eden in heaven?
yes, it still is
Reply

Hiroshi
07-27-2010, 11:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Was the Garden of Eden in heaven?
I'm not sure of Islamic teaching here which is why I asked the question. According to the Bible, of course, the Garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve, were always on earth.

Maybe Islam teaches that the Garden of Eden was in heaven and that Adam went there after giving the names of the animals. Then he returned to earth (with Eve) as a penalty for sinning.
Reply

Hiroshi
07-27-2010, 11:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
yes, it still is
Thanks for explaining.
Reply

aadil77
07-27-2010, 11:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
You keep saying that you don't worship anything but Allah. But you appear to be needing innumerable conditions to worship Allah, right from a particular direction to a particular format. The logic is that if the worship is nothing other than Allah, then directly worshiping Him without any conditions would be the order. But of course, all of us need many aids towards worship because we are all in a limited body with limited senses. However, the aids that Muslims use, including the carpet, the looking into their own palms are valid but when Hindus use similar aids, including "dolls", that is condemned. We are all in one boat. The only people who are on shore are those who do not see God outside them but one with their own consciousness. Such people do not need worship at all. Hinduism is home to those who have reached the shore.
Those conditions are set by Him, the logic is when the Creator gives you a way of worshipping Him - thats what He has commanded and thats what you've got to follow

the carpet has nothing to do with islam other than praying on a clean place, you could pray on a sheet of paper if you wanted to,

'looking into their own palms' - I'm assuming you're talking about du'a, your hands are no 'aid' or idols, you can do du'a without raising your hands if you want
Reply

Hiroshi
07-27-2010, 11:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
what are you talking about?
On the first post on the thread "Bible vs Qur'an ... etc." Al-manar wrote:

"Unlike the Quran that views Adam as been taught the names of everything by God, the bible would view Adam as the one who chose the names of the creatures!"

This in reference, I believe, to Surah 2:33-34.
Reply

aadil77
07-27-2010, 12:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Maybe Islam teaches that the Garden of Eden was in heaven and that Adam went there after giving the names of the animals. Then he returned to earth (with Eve) as a penalty for sinning.
sorry what giving of animal names are you talking about?

Adam never 'returned' to earth he was sent there for the first time after disobeying Allah

Quran Chapter 7 (18) O Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things) as ye wish: but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression." (19) Then began satan to whisper suggestions to them, in order to reveal to them their shame that was hidden from them (before): he said "Your Lord only forbade you this tree lest ye should become angels or such beings as live forever." (20) And he swore to them both, that he was their sincere adviser. (21) So by deceit he brought about their fall: when they tasted of the tree, their shame became manifest to them, and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: "Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you that satan was an avowed enemy unto you?" (22) They said: "our Lord! we have wronged our own souls: if Thou forgive us not and bestow not upon us Thy Mercy we shall certainly be lost." (23) (Allah) said: "Get ye down, with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling-place and your means of livelihood― for a time." (24) He said: "therein shall ye live and therein shall ye die; but from it shall ye be taken out (at last)."
Reply

aadil77
07-27-2010, 12:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
On the first post on the thread "Bible vs Qur'an ... etc." Al-manar wrote:

"Unlike the Quran that views Adam as been taught the names of everything by God, the bible would view Adam as the one who chose the names of the creatures!"

This in reference, I believe, to Surah 2:33-34.
ok yep these verses:

Quran Chapter 2 (30) And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels, saying: Inform Me of the names of these, if ye are truthful. (31) They said: Be glorified! We have no knowledge saving that which Thou hast taught us. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower, the Wise. (32) He said: O Adam! Inform them of their names, and when he had informed them of their names, He said: Did I not tell you that I know the secret of the heavens and the earth? And I know that which ye disclose and which ye hide.
Reply

Hiroshi
07-27-2010, 01:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
ok yep these verses:

Quran Chapter 2 (30) And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels, saying: Inform Me of the names of these, if ye are truthful. (31) They said: Be glorified! We have no knowledge saving that which Thou hast taught us. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower, the Wise. (32) He said: O Adam! Inform them of their names, and when he had informed them of their names, He said: Did I not tell you that I know the secret of the heavens and the earth? And I know that which ye disclose and which ye hide.
Okay. So did Adam name the animals at a time when he was in heaven and they were on earth? Makes better sense.
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-27-2010, 03:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
Those conditions are set by Him, the logic is when the Creator gives you a way of worshipping Him - thats what He has commanded and thats what you've got to follow
To the mind of Muslims Allah has dominion over non-believers also. But you must understand that Allah’s commands have a bearing only on His believers. Of what value are His commands to those who do not believe Him? Therefore the aim of Islam is to first make more and more believers. This is contradictory to the approach of science, which does not require believers but only people educated enough to understand facts. As of today, two-thirds of mankind does not yet believe in Allah and His teachings, unless you take the word Allah to mean a generic word which incorporates the meaning different sorts of believers give to the word. The English word God has taken on a generic meaning. But the word Allah is still confined to the meaning Islam gives it. It is best to use the word Allah as simply the God of the Muslims (also used by the Arab Christians, but which word then takes on a generic meaning or a meaning different from the meaning Muslims give it). Thus, your insight “that’s what He has commanded and that’s what you’ve got to follow” applies only to the Muslims.

format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
the carpet has nothing to do with islam other than praying on a clean place, you could pray on a sheet of paper if you wanted to, 'looking into their own palms' - I'm assuming you're talking about du'a, your hands are no 'aid' or idols, you can do du'a without raising your hands if you want
The object of your worship whether prostrating on the carpet or on a piece of paper and doing dua with or without your hands is Allah, who is outside you. Is it not simple to understand that anything which is outside you is an object to you and therefore Allah is also an object to you? Idols are also objects. The Hindu idols are concrete objects which you can see with your eyes and touch with your hands. The Islamic idol of Allah is an object of sound – otherwise the word Allah would not exist.
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-27-2010, 04:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
Because man altered them, by Allahs will
I don’t think it is fair logic to say man altered them and by Allah’s will. Anything that Allah wills would be the work of Allah. Therefore it would mean that Allah altered his scriptures till finally He decided He would no more alter scriptures and sent down the Quran.

format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
What do you think? human nature is we'll usually only to do things if there are consequences of our actions,
This is so only in the case of immature people. The matured individuals have a moral righteousness within them and would not need any promptings from outside.

format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
this is why you hardly get any practicing christians today - apparently they're already forgiven for their sins for they don't fear any punishment of god
You are saying that Islam is practiced on the basis of fear. So much for the religion of peace! (The only peace that goes with fear is the peace of the graveyard.)
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-27-2010, 04:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
A god for rain and a god for drought, a god for harvest, a god for famine, would they get along? If that is the result of meditation then how pitiable!
The result of meditation is the obliteration of the subject-object dichotomy. Thus the result of meditation of not more gods but less gods, till the one God moves from His objective position and merges into the subject, thus ending the role of God.
Reply

aadil77
07-27-2010, 04:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Okay. So did Adam name the animals at a time when he was in heaven and they were on earth? Makes better sense.
I don't know, but probably, here's an explanation of the verse:

And He taught Adam the names, that is, the names of things named, all of them, by placing knowledge of them into his heart; then He presented them, these names, the majority of which concerned intellectual beings, to the angels and said, to them in reproach, ‘Now tell Me, inform Me, the names of these, things named, if you speak truly’, in your claim that I would not create anything more knowledgeable than you, or that you are more deserving of this vicegerency; the response to the conditional sentence is intimated by what precedes it.
Reply

aadil77
07-27-2010, 04:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
To the mind of Muslims Allah has dominion over non-believers also. But you must understand that Allah’s commands have a bearing only on His believers. Of what value are His commands to those who do not believe Him? Therefore the aim of Islam is to first make more and more believers. This is contradictory to the approach of science, which does not require believers but only people educated enough to understand facts. As of today, two-thirds of mankind does not yet believe in Allah and His teachings, unless you take the word Allah to mean a generic word which incorporates the meaning different sorts of believers give to the word. The English word God has taken on a generic meaning. But the word Allah is still confined to the meaning Islam gives it. It is best to use the word Allah as simply the God of the Muslims (also used by the Arab Christians, but which word then takes on a generic meaning or a meaning different from the meaning Muslims give it). Thus, your insight “that’s what He has commanded and that’s what you’ve got to follow” applies only to the Muslims.

The object of your worship whether prostrating on the carpet or on a piece of paper and doing dua with or without your hands is Allah, who is outside you. Is it not simple to understand that anything which is outside you is an object to you and therefore Allah is also an object to you? Idols are also objects. The Hindu idols are concrete objects which you can see with your eyes and touch with your hands. The Islamic idol of Allah is an object of sound – otherwise the word Allah would not exist.
I don't know what you're on about, all I will say is we don't pray to any objects - know matter how hard you try to prove otherwise. Lets not turn this into a hinduism thread
Reply

aadil77
07-27-2010, 04:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
I don’t think it is fair logic to say man altered them and by Allah’s will. Anything that Allah wills would be the work of Allah. Therefore it would mean that Allah altered his scriptures till finally He decided He would no more alter scriptures and sent down the Quran.

Everything happens by Allah's will, if you're gonna murder someone, you'll be able to do it because of the free will god has given you. If god wanted He could prevent you from doing it.

This is so only in the case of immature people. The matured individuals have a moral righteousness within them and would not need any promptings from outside.

Nope. No matter how 'matured' people are; if there was no punishment for their wrong doings they would take advantage of this fact - as you can see in the case of christians. This is how god has created us, no matter how intelligent or mature you are what you do will always come down to the bare consequences you'll face as a result of your actions.

You are saying that Islam is practiced on the basis of fear. So much for the religion of peace! (The only peace that goes with fear is the peace of the graveyard.)

In Islam everything is balanced and realistic. This is not just a religion based on love where everything you do is out love for god, this is unrealistic and doesn't work - perfect example = christians. And this is not just a religion based on fear where everything you do is because you fear gods punishment. We have a balance of both, everything we do is to seek gods pleasure and avoid His punishment.
btw I hate all this 'religion of peace' nonsense, by living the islamic way of life you can achieve peace, but not everything is about peace, there is also struggle and theres also punishment.
Reply

جوري
07-27-2010, 05:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
The result of meditation is the obliteration of the subject-object dichotomy. Thus the result of meditation of not more gods but less gods, till the one God moves from His objective position and merges into the subject, thus ending the role of God.

?????????????????????
Reply

cat eyes
07-27-2010, 07:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
You keep saying that you don't worship anything but Allah. But you appear to be needing innumerable conditions to worship Allah, right from a particular direction to a particular format. The logic is that if the worship is nothing other than Allah, then directly worshiping Him without any conditions would be the order. But of course, all of us need many aids towards worship because we are all in a limited body with limited senses. However, the aids that Muslims use, including the carpet, the looking into their own palms are valid but when Hindus use similar aids, including "dolls", that is condemned. We are all in one boat. The only people who are on shore are those who do not see God outside them but one with their own consciousness. Such people do not need worship at all. Hinduism is home to those who have reached the shore.
your trying your very best but its clear you don't seem to be making any sense:muddlehea

please LEARN the difference between your religion and ours because you make out like you know our religion but you don't. your just throwing whatever thing which comes into your head and trying to find some fault which you can't lol

you know pft all
Reply

bhakti
07-28-2010, 02:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
I see you consider yourself and everything in the world divine. So you could worship anything then. Even a lump of faeces must be divine, no? Hey, you could even worship yourself!
lol....that got me laughing out loud man! The problem is with your simplistic approach to the universe. You don't realize that the lump of faeces or a lump of gold or the computer in front of you or the stars far far away are actually images formed in your mind. Yup, the stars aren't far away. They are in your mind. Just as when you take a photograph of something far away, the photograph is in your hands. Similarly, when you see, hear etc or when you bump into a wall or hit your hand with a hammer it is the brain and ultimately consciousness that is projecting these sensations.

Ever heard of Quantum Physics? This branch of theoretical physics is making waves in the present day scientific world and the progress science is making in the realm of consciousness and our perception of reality is alarming to say the least.

Several experiments have shown beyond doubt that mathematics and the known laws of the universe fail when it comes to perception. When mathematical formulae would tell you that only event1 can happen, consciousness perceives event2! This creates a dichotomy between what should actually be happening out there and what consciousness percieves is happening out there! Science is maturing towards understanding that universal consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all existence.

That the vedantic schoold of philosophy has already discussed this in detail while modern science is only now taking a peek at this fascinating revelation is something astonishing! This is why almost all theoretical physicists of note right has always held a fascination for the vedanta school.

Of course, whether you are willing to make such a drastic change in your perception of the world and join this fascinating journey or whether you want to hold on to your simplistic subject-object view of the world remains a decision you have to make.

"The vastest knowledge of today cannot transcend the buddhi (intellect) of the Rishis in ancient India; and science in its most advanced stage now is closer to Vedanta than ever before."
-- Alfred North Whitehead

"The Veda was the most precious gift for which the West had ever been indebted to the East."
-- Voltaire

"Religious faith in the case of the Hindus has never been allowed to run counter to scientific laws moreover the former is never made a condition for the knowledge they teach but there are always scrupulously careful to take into consideration the possibility that by reason both the agnostic and atheist may attain truth in their own way. Such tolerance may be surprising to religious believers in the West but it is an integral part of Vedantic belief."
-- Romain Rolland

"It was only my first meeting with the Indian philosophy that confirmed my vague speculations and seemed at once logical and boundless."
-- William Butler Yeats

"The Vedic literature opens to us a chapter in what has been called the education of the human race to which we can find no parallel anywhere else."
-- Professor F. Max Muller
Reply

جوري
07-28-2010, 03:05 AM
^^ can I set you loose on the new board evangie? I think we can use one last bit of bombastic entertainment before the holy month..you can go on quoting people, see whose quote beats the other quote's a$$ :smile:
Reply

bhakti
07-28-2010, 04:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
^^ can I set you loose on the new board evangie? I think we can use one last bit of bombastic entertainment before the holy month..you can go on quoting people, see whose quote beats the other quote's a$$ :smile:
And there goes another cheap shot! That the best you could do? Am i not justified in giving insane insaan an answer to his question?
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-28-2010, 05:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by cat eyes
your trying your very best but its clear you don't seem to be making any sense:muddlehea please LEARN the difference between your religion and ours because you make out like you know our religion but you don't. your just throwing whatever thing which comes into your head and trying to find some fault which you can't lol
The only difference between Islam and Hinduism is that while Islam absolutely posits that the creator is eternally separate from His creation, there are schools in Hinduism (not all schools) which posit that the creator and created are one and the same. In other words Islam and a large portion of Hinduism are alike - it is only the non-dual school of Hinduism that goes beyond Islam. By this of course it is not made out that one religion is greater than the other or anything like that. All religions are paths that help man to reach the ultimate.
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-28-2010, 05:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
btw I hate all this 'religion of peace' nonsense, by living the islamic way of life you can achieve peace, but not everything is about peace, there is also struggle and theres also punishment.
Unless everything is about peace, the lessons of religion would not have been learnt.
Reply

Hiroshi
07-28-2010, 05:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
I don't know, but probably, here's an explanation of the verse:

And He taught Adam the names, that is, the names of things named, all of them, by placing knowledge of them into his heart; then He presented them, these names, the majority of which concerned intellectual beings, to the angels and said, to them in reproach, ‘Now tell Me, inform Me, the names of these, things named, if you speak truly’, in your claim that I would not create anything more knowledgeable than you, or that you are more deserving of this vicegerency; the response to the conditional sentence is intimated by what precedes it.
Thank you. This must mean then that genuine Muslims do not believe in evolution. I mean, you wouldn't expect to find million year old fossil remains of apelike ancestors of humanity if man originated, not on earth but in heaven, and as a perfectly formed new creature. I'm happy that we agree there. I don't believe in evolution either.
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-28-2010, 05:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
I don't know what you're on about, all I will say is we don't pray to any objects - know matter how hard you try to prove otherwise. Lets not turn this into a hinduism thread
However you try, you will not be able to deny that Allah is outside you and whatever is outside you is an object for you. It does not need Hinduism or rocket-science to understand that whatever object you worship, that object is an idol for you. Therefore worship of Allah is idol worship. Your denying it simply flies in the face of facts.
Reply

'Abd Al-Maajid
07-28-2010, 05:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
However you try, you will not be able to deny that Allah is outside you and whatever is outside you is an object for you. It does not need Hinduism or rocket-science to understand that whatever object you worship, that object is an idol for you. Therefore worship of Allah is idol worship. Your denying it simply flies in the face of facts.
aye! What did you just say?
Reply

Hiroshi
07-28-2010, 05:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
Because man altered them, by Allahs will
You believe that angels have no free will, but that men and djinn do have free will, right? (Surah 18:50)
Reply

Lynx
07-28-2010, 06:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
You keep saying that you don't worship anything but Allah. But you appear to be needing innumerable conditions to worship Allah, right from a particular direction to a particular format. The logic is that if the worship is nothing other than Allah, then directly worshiping Him without any conditions would be the order. But of course, all of us need many aids towards worship because we are all in a limited body with limited senses. However, the aids that Muslims use, including the carpet, the looking into their own palms are valid but when Hindus use similar aids, including "dolls", that is condemned. We are all in one boat. The only people who are on shore are those who do not see God outside them but one with their own consciousness. Such people do not need worship at all. Hinduism is home to those who have reached the shore.

I wanted to point something perhaps of interest to you K.Venu. Some Sufi orders in Islam have the same view of God and have chosen to worship God by trying to merge their conciousness with his holy being rather than have a set of rituals act as intermediaries to God; they, I suspect, believe they've gone beyond the need of rituals guiding their direction of worship. Just goes to show you the different ways people reach God. These comments about 8 limbed blue dolls only show the ignorance of some people...not to mention goes against instructions in the Quran of not insulting other people's Gods.

edit: i just re-read your last line and i don't think it's entirely accurate. How many hindus actualyl see beyond hte idol? I think for the most part hindus around the world don't look beyond the character the idol represents and in this case I don't think hinduism is the 'home' for people who have reached your metaphorical shore. One thing about Islam that probably should be emphasized is that it makes it easier for direct communication with God just because it's so strict on monotheism. I guess what I am trying to say is that the typical Muslim is closer to God than the typical Hindu because the Hindu is behind more 'veils' .
Reply

Muslimeen
07-28-2010, 07:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Muslims say that whatever they do, they only worship Allah, nothing and no one else. But is it not a fact that in a Hadith Mohammad said that even sex is worship if done properly? So though Muslims worship only Allah, it is not as if this worship does not extend to other activities in day-to-day living. This is precisely the position of the Hindus. Though they worship the ultimate, they have the liberty to focus their worship on tangible representations of the ultimate.
I know this is not a hinduism thread, and will probably get hit for derailing, but someone told me hindus actually worship the private part of a man, I did a bit of research and found this. Is it true?? Tell me it's not. If it is I guess it's time you stop trying to ridicule Islam and muslims. What do you have to say about Kal Ki Avtar??

Worship of the Phallus
According to some scholars, worship of Shiva Linga in effect means worship of the reproduction function. For, they say that the other meaning of the Sanskrit word ‘Linga’ is gender in general and phallus (the male reproductive organ) in particular. They believe that the base of the Lingam corresponds to the Yoni which mean vagina or the female reproductive organ. Correspondence of Linga and Yoni in a Shiva Linga is therefore interpreted as the representation of the process of copulation. Scholars further opine that the Kalash (container of water) that is suspended over the Shiva Linga from which water drips over the Linga also correspond to the idea of intercourse.

Connecting the origin of Shiva Linga to the early Indus Valley civilization, scholars opine that tribes of the Indus Valley took to the togetherness of Lingam and Yoni in a Shiva Linga as the point of energy, creation and enlightenment
Reply

Tyrion
07-28-2010, 07:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Thank you. This must mean then that genuine Muslims do not believe in evolution. I mean, you wouldn't expect to find million year old fossil remains of apelike ancestors of humanity if man originated, not on earth but in heaven, and as a perfectly formed new creature. I'm happy that we agree there. I don't believe in evolution either.
I don't think that Islam rejects evolution entirely, but only when it comes to man.


Also, I'll ask one more time if we could please try not to make this thread into a Hinduism vs. Islam debate.
Reply

aadil77
07-28-2010, 08:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
You believe that angels have no free will, but that men and djinn do have free will, right? (Surah 18:50)
yep, men and jinn have the god given free will to do what they want
Reply

aadil77
07-28-2010, 08:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
However you try, you will not be able to deny that Allah is outside you and whatever is outside you is an object for you. It does not need Hinduism or rocket-science to understand that whatever object you worship, that object is an idol for you. Therefore worship of Allah is idol worship. Your denying it simply flies in the face of facts.
what object, I see no object, have you lost your marbles?

don't reply back on this thread I'm opening a thread in the comparitive religion section called


Hinduism VS Islam
Reply

Muslimeen
07-28-2010, 08:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
don't reply back on this thread I'm opening a thread in the comparitive religion section called


Hinduism VS Islam
I think you should, in fact I was thinking about the same.
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-28-2010, 08:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by abdulmājid
aye! What did you just say?
Just the guy whose certificate you need!
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-28-2010, 09:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
I wanted to point something perhaps of interest to you K.Venu. Some Sufi orders in Islam have the same view of God and have chosen to worship God by trying to merge their conciousness with his holy being rather than have a set of rituals act as intermediaries to God; they, I suspect, believe they've gone beyond the need of rituals guiding their direction of worship. Just goes to show you the different ways people reach God.
I entirely agree with you that many Sufis have gone beyond dualism but so long as their followers are largely within the matrix of dogmatic Islam, Sufism is celebrated only by the romantics.

format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
These comments about 8 limbed blue dolls only show the ignorance of some people...not to mention goes against instructions in the Quran of not insulting other people's Gods.
I really do not understand the Quranic instructions about not insulting other peoples’ Gods but by unfailingly saying that Islam is the only true religion, does the Quran do aught else but insult other religions?

format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
edit: i just re-read your last line and i don't think it's entirely accurate. How many hindus actualyl see beyond hte idol?
Relatively only a few people look, wish to look or have the capacity to look beyond idols. The idols are for the masses – popular Hinduism. It must also be remembered that Vedanta (comprising the more subtle teachings of Hinduism) is not a promise to the masses but to individuals who are ready to plunge into those subtle depths.

format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
I think for the most part hindus around the world don't look beyond the character the idol represents and in this case I don't think hinduism is the 'home' for people who have reached your metaphorical shore.
You are right here. I should have said “Hinduism is also home to those who have reached …”

format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
One thing about Islam that probably should be emphasized is that it makes it easier for direct communication with God just because it's so strict on monotheism. I guess what I am trying to say is that the typical Muslim is closer to God than the typical Hindu because the Hindu is behind more 'veils' .
Your “closer to God” phrase appears to miss the point that God is that which the believers believe and if the idol worshipper believes his idol is God, then he would not have reason to believe he is far from God. However, Islam offers no prospect of closing the gap between God and the believer whereas Hinduism is all about the believer (worshiper) becoming one with the worshipped entity.
Reply

Trumble
07-28-2010, 09:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77

don't reply back on this thread I'm opening a thread in the comparitive religion section called


Hinduism VS Islam
Do you have to? It isn't a football match. And, with respect, nobody here seems to enough knowledge and understanding of both religions to make any meaninful 'vs' type comparisons.
Reply

aadil77
07-28-2010, 09:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Do you have to? It isn't a football match. And, with respect, nobody here seems to enough knowledge and understanding of both religions to make any meaninful 'vs' type comparisons.
You ask what ever you want in that relevent to hinduism/islam, it doesn't have to be comparison thread, saves having all these completely off topic posts here
Reply

bhakti
07-28-2010, 10:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
I just re-read your last line and i don't think it's entirely accurate. How many hindus actualyl see beyond hte idol? I think for the most part hindus around the world don't look beyond the character the idol represents and in this case I don't think hinduism is the 'home' for people who have reached your metaphorical shore. One thing about Islam that probably should be emphasized is that it makes it easier for direct communication with God just because it's so strict on monotheism. I guess what I am trying to say is that the typical Muslim is closer to God than the typical Hindu because the Hindu is behind more 'veils' .
I would disagree with the view that idol worship is only a way to concentrate one's devotion so that one may rise above this level and then go "beyond the idol" and reach God consciousness. Though an idol does help with concentration that is not the only function.

Worshiping a beautiful image is only an extension of the idea that the world around you is only one conjured up by the collective consciousness (a view that even modern science is leaning towards). When you look at an idol as God, what you are doing is conjuring God within the image because the idol itself is a projection made by the consciousness so you are free to impart whatever qualities you can to it. If you think the image is God, it is God. If you think it isn't, it simply isn't. Consciousness rules everything. I hope I'm making sense :)

If you have seen bhajans etc. all over India, you'll see people literally dancing and singing aloud lost in their love for Krishna. I think this is the ultimate expression of bhakti/devotion. Mere reverence is simply too shallow. Love for your God, the longing desire to picture him as your own little child whom you can cuddle in your arms goes far beyond reverence.

Like Emerson famously said - "If we meet no Gods, its because we harbour none"

And yes Sufism is awesome! If I'm not mistaken, the culture has it's roots in India right?
Reply

جوري
07-28-2010, 10:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
And there goes another cheap shot! That the best you could do? Am i not justified in giving insane insaan an answer to his question?
ha? I expect that if your answers were 'justified' that you'd at least address insane insaan by her correct gender. You can't get the little things correct, and you expect that the bigger details dazzle us?

all the best
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-28-2010, 11:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muslimeen
I know this is not a hinduism thread, and will probably get hit for derailing, but someone told me hindus actually worship the private part of a man, I did a bit of research and found this. Is it true?? Tell me it's not. If it is I guess it's time you stop trying to ridicule Islam and muslims.
Please stand corrected. Hindus do not worship man’s private parts. But Hindus (and by Hindus, take it as a standing rule that it is meant “some Hindus” because not all Hindus are represented by any one mode of worship) do worship the generative principle of God or existence as symbolized anthropomorphically. Actually the complete generative principle symbolized anthropomorphically is represented in a phallic form (linga) arising from a vaginal form (yoni).
Reply

aadil77
07-28-2010, 12:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Please stand corrected. Hindus do not worship man’s private parts. But Hindus (and by Hindus, take it as a standing rule that it is meant “some Hindus” because not all Hindus are represented by any one mode of worship) do worship the generative principle of God or existence as symbolized anthropomorphically. Actually the complete generative principle symbolized anthropomorphically is represented in a phallic form (linga) arising from a vaginal form (yoni).
I love how you try to portray it in complicated words...............;D
Reply

Insaanah
07-28-2010, 01:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
?????????????????????
Gobbledegook!

What kind of belief is it, that cannot be explained simply?

format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Please stand corrected. Hindus do not worship man’s private parts. But Hindus (and by Hindus, take it as a standing rule that it is meant “some Hindus” because not all Hindus are represented by any one mode of worship) do worship the generative principle of God or existence as symbolized anthropomorphically. Actually the complete generative principle symbolized anthropomorphically is represented in a phallic form (linga) arising from a vaginal form (yoni).
For anyone who's confused or dazzled by the language, in simple terms, yes.

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
Love for your God, the longing desire to picture him as your own little child whom you can cuddle in your arms goes far beyond reverence.
That made me laugh! I have no longing desire to picture God as a helpless child that has to be picked up, be so small as to fit in my arms and be cuddled! Glorified and Exalted be He, above that!

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
The problem is with your simplistic approach to the universe. You don't realize that the lump of faeces or a lump of gold or the computer in front of you or the stars far far away are actually images formed in your mind. Yup, the stars aren't far away. They are in your mind.
As you are in your mind?

format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
When you look at an idol as God, what you are doing is conjuring God within the image because the idol itself is a projection made by the consciousness so you are free to impart whatever qualities you can to it. If you think the image is God, it is God. If you think it isn't, it simply isn't. Consciousness rules everything.
So, according to you, if someone says that a lump of faeces is god, it becomes god. Or a table, a tree, or a TV. You just don't see the ridiculousness and fallacy of what you're saying.

format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
However you try, you will not be able to deny that Allah is outside you and whatever is outside you is an object for you. It does not need Hinduism or rocket-science to understand that whatever object you worship, that object is an idol for you. Therefore worship of Allah is idol worship. Your denying it simply flies in the face of facts.
The inherent problem Hindus have here is that they conceive God to be an object, and cannot go beyond that taught constraint of theirs, because for centuries Hindus have carved their gods with their own hands and then worshipped them. To them, god cannot be anything but an object. That centuries old tradition and belief is fully imbibed in them, and their minds cannot ask whether that is actually the truth or not, is it possible to worship an All Powerful God who is not mixed up in His creation? Nor will they ask, how come our (Hindus') god couldn't even separate himself from his creation, and distinguish himself from them?

This idea now, of god being what you want him to be, you yourself are creating that idea of what you want him to be, in your mind. In non-duality, the creator god is arises from Brahman, so the creator god to you, is not only an object, but also was also created. What kind of a creator is it that was created from something himself?

The minute you yourself, or any person, starts defining what is or isn't God, that entity is not God, because you have created his definition yourself.

Muslims do not make up their definition of God to suit themselves, and we do not define God. We believe in Him as He has defined Himself:

"Say: He is Allah, the One!
Allah, Who is in need of none and of Whom all are in need
He begets not, nor was He begotten
And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him." (Qur'an, Chapter 112)

I invite you to accept and believe in God as He has defined Himself.

Peace.
Reply

syed_z
07-28-2010, 02:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by bhakti
Worshiping a beautiful image is only an extension of the idea that the world around you is only one conjured up by the collective consciousness (a view that even modern science is leaning towards). When you look at an idol as God, what you are doing is conjuring God within the image because the idol itself is a projection made by the consciousness so you are free to impart whatever qualities you can to it. If you think the image is God, it is God. If you think it isn't, it simply isn't. Consciousness rules everything. I hope I'm making sense :)


Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that
"..a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God." If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small ‘g’ that is fake god) but God (with a capital ‘G’).


Science rather is coming to the conclusion that God is ONE and thats it! Could you please provide me with European and Western Scientists accepting Hinduism in Large numbers... i can give you a list who are accepting Islam in Large numbers...
Reply

syed_z
07-28-2010, 02:19 PM
If you have seen bhajans etc. all over India, you'll see people literally dancing and singing aloud lost in their love for Krishna. I think this is the ultimate expression of bhakti/devotion.
are you related to Bhakti movement in India ?


Difference between Hinduism , Christianity and budhism Vs Islam is that in Islam God is not to be found only in the Private Sphere of ones life, rather God has given us not only personal Laws but A Collective set of Laws and norms for any Civilized society... so this life for a Muslim, where he not only works for his own better, but also for the better of others.... we have beautiful teachings, i don't know why are you wasting time here ? Unless you could Prove that Hinduism is better than Islam ?
Reply

Trumble
07-28-2010, 04:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z
Science rather is coming to the conclusion that God is ONE and thats it!
Rubbish... 'science' is coming to no conclusion regarding God (or gods) at all, and probably never will and never can. What 'models of God' have supposedly been 'eliminated'? Point us to the research papers, please.

Could you please provide me with European and Western Scientists accepting Hinduism in Large numbers... i can give you a list who are accepting Islam in Large numbers...
Go on then; it will need to be a long list. There are maybe, what, a couple of million scientists of assorted types in 'Europe and the West' at least? 'Large numbers' would be, what, a couple of hundred thousand of them maybe? If you are just thinking of the usual tired old list of Bucaille, Moore etc. (most of whom never actually converted anyway) you could no doubt find a list of just as many who became Wiccans or Scientologists.

Of course, many thousands of scientists have become muslims, just as many thousands have become Christians, and followers of the Dharmic religions, and agnostics, humanists and atheists - just as in any other sphere of life.
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-28-2010, 05:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
what object, I see no object, have you lost your marbles?

don't reply back on this thread I'm opening a thread in the comparitive religion section called Hinduism VS Islam
Aadil, I think you have not yet started Hinduism vs. Islam thread.

My point is very simple. Is not everything that is outside you an object to you - whether you are able to see the object or not? Like you can't see germs, but still it is an object because it is outside you - maybe it is inside your body also, but the “you” talked about is the subject - what you get when you say "I". If Allah is outside you then He is an object, is He not? Whether He is actually an object is another matter, but as far as you are concerned, He is an object. So if you worship Him and He is an object for you, then you are indulging in idol worship. How is it difficult to understand this?
Reply

Insaanah
07-28-2010, 05:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
My point is very simple. Is not everything that is outside you an object to you - whether you are able to see the object or not? Like you can't see germs, but still it is an object because it is outside you - maybe it is inside your body also, but the “you” talked about is the subject - what you get when you say "I". If Allah is outside you then He is an object, is He not? Whether He is actually an object is another matter, but as far as you are concerned, He is an object.
Thank you for illustrating what I said in my post beautifully!

format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
So if you worship Him and He is an object for you, then you are indulging in idol worship.
As above.

Peace.
Reply

aadil77
07-28-2010, 06:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Aadil, I think you have not yet started Hinduism vs. Islam thread.

My point is very simple. Is not everything that is outside you an object to you - whether you are able to see the object or not? Like you can't see germs, but still it is an object because it is outside you - maybe it is inside your body also, but the “you” talked about is the subject - what you get when you say "I". If Allah is outside you then He is an object, is He not? Whether He is actually an object is another matter, but as far as you are concerned, He is an object. So if you worship Him and He is an object for you, then you are indulging in idol worship. How is it difficult to understand this?
my thread is awaiting approval and

what the hell are you on about? are you an object? living beings are not objects

and for your information you can see germs if you try to using the right equipment, but you cannot see Allah no matter how hard you try unless He wills
Reply

syed_z
07-28-2010, 07:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Rubbish... 'science' is coming to no conclusion regarding God (or gods) at all, and probably never will and never can. What 'models of God' have supposedly been 'eliminated'? Point us to the research papers, please.



Go on then; it will need to be a long list. There are maybe, what, a couple of million scientists of assorted types in 'Europe and the West' at least? 'Large numbers' would be, what, a couple of hundred thousand of them maybe? If you are just thinking of the usual tired old list of Bucaille, Moore etc. (most of whom never actually converted anyway) you could no doubt find a list of just as many who became Wiccans or Scientologists.

Of course, many thousands of scientists have become muslims, just as many thousands have become Christians, and followers of the Dharmic religions, and agnostics, humanists and atheists - just as in any other sphere of life.
well go ask Francis Bacon , for he was one of your own...

If it makes you happy worshiping a piece of Stone, then i guess be it... not my problem, i was just telling the guy that Scientists are eliminating all kinds of models of god, because when they look in to the Universe and within themselves, they see hand of a creator, who cannot be made with ones own mind. Any thing made or any concept made in ones mind and then you draw a picture or carve it in to stone, is a so called god created by your own thoughts, and so how could it be real ? and what proof do you have , that it is the same that you created with your own hands , governs the whole universe... ?

Any sensible person would reject it... only fools would accept it, who don't use their reason.. and since your a Budhist , did Budha tell to worship him ? or make his idol and prostrate infront of him ?


May God guide you, and i pray for you...
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-28-2010, 07:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
So, according to you, if someone says that a lump of faeces is god, it becomes god. You just don't see the ridiculousness and fallacy of what you're saying.
The understanding is that all existence is one – not that faeces is God or God is faeces. In the understanding that all existence is one, such a God (who is separate from everything) does not exist – so where is the question of such a God being faeces or the other way round? What tells us, for example, a bar of gold and a lump of faeces is not the same is our consciousness working through our senses. But our consciousness can also work through understanding. If we understand that the nature of everything changes from moment to moment and yet there is something in everything, whether in faeces or gold, that does not change with time, then we would have understood the oneness of existence. A mind that has understood the oneness of existence is no longer fragmented by the like-dislike dichotomy of the sensual mind. Normally we like gold and shun faeces but when we reach to the higher understanding, we, while continuing to make out the difference between gold and faeces, are not fragmented by that difference.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
The inherent problem Hindus have here is that they conceive God to be an object, and cannot go beyond that taught constraint of theirs, because for centuries Hindus have carved their gods with their own hands and then worshipped them. To them, god cannot be anything but an object.
Whatever God is, Islam and many other religions, including those in Hinduism, teach that God is an object outside us. But there are religions in Hinduism that teach that God is not outside us – God is not an object. They teach that we are God, that is, God is the subject. So we can say that it is Islam that conceives that God is an object, not Hinduism.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
That centuries old tradition and belief is fully imbibed in them, and their minds cannot ask whether that is actually the truth or not, is it possible to worship an All Powerful God who is not mixed up in His creation?
Whether mixed up with His creation or not and whatever God actually is, Muslims who believe that God is outside them can only worship God as an object.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
Nor will they ask, how come our (Hindus') god couldn't even separate himself from his creation, and distinguish himself from them?
Why would God want to separate Himself from his so-called creation when it is nothing other than God Himself? In the reality beyond duality that is the oneness of existence, there is no creation and there is no creator God.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
This idea now, of god being what you want him to be, you yourself are creating that idea of what you want him to be, in your mind.
In non-duality the wanting of anything disappears – so where is the question of wanting God to be this or that?

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
In non-duality, the creator god is arises from Brahman, so the creator god to you, is not only an object, but also was also created.
In non-duality, there is only the oneness of existence. The story of creator-God and creation, whichever way, is a dualist’s story. Some might choose to believe the Islamic version; some might choose to believe the
format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
What kind of a creator is it that was created from something himself?
Please note that this positing of a creator is a dualistic story.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
The minute you yourself, or any person, starts defining what is or isn't God, that entity is not God, because you have created his definition yourself.
Yes, you could say that. All our definitions fall short of the reality but oft times they are our best guide.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
Muslims do not make up their definition of God to suit themselves, and we do not define God. We believe in Him as He has defined Himself:
I have no quarrel with your belief.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
"Say: He is Allah, the One!
Allah, Who is in need of none and of Whom all are in need
He begets not, nor was He begotten
And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him." (Qur'an, Chapter 112)
Why did He specifically say “He begets not”? Please tell me the background.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
I invite you to accept and believe in God as He has defined Himself. Peace.
A strange request considering that even after the proposed acceptance, God continues to be a belief. Why should I go from the certainty of self-realization to a mere belief in God?
Reply

syed_z
07-28-2010, 07:39 PM
Whatever God is, Islam and many other religions, including those in Hinduism, teach that God is an object outside us. But there are religions in Hinduism that teach that God is not outside us – God is not an object. They teach that we are God, that is, God is the subject. So we can say that it is Islam that conceives that God is an object, not Hinduism.
Well then HInduism contradicts it self... because HInduism says he is an Object outside of us and then teach God is not outside ? So who is God if we are God ?

No Islam says...

None is Like Him (Surah Ikhlas)



Object is matter, tangible, something can be seen. God in Islam is not like that...
Reply

syed_z
07-28-2010, 07:41 PM
Whether mixed up with His creation or not and whatever God actually is, Muslims who believe that God is outside them can only worship God as an object.
Why would God want to separate Himself from his so-called creation when it is nothing other than God Himself? In the reality beyond duality that is the oneness of existence, there is no creation and there is no creator God.
God would separate because otherwise it would not distinguish Him that He is God, for God is some One who is defined as Unique!
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-28-2010, 07:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
what the hell are you on about? are you an object? living beings are not objects
Yes living beings are not only objects but also subjects. But another living being, outside of you the subject is for you an object.

format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
and for your information you can see germs if you try to using the right equipment, but you cannot see Allah no matter how hard you try unless He wills
Yes, if we use the right equipment, we can see germs. Likewise, if we use our equipment of understanding, we can see Allah – meaning we can understand the concept of Allah. And we will understand that Allah is none other than what we are.
Reply

syed_z
07-28-2010, 07:46 PM
Why did He specifically say “He begets not”? Please tell me the background.
i.e who is free of the imperfection inherent in the concept of begetting a child as an extension of ones own being.

Does Hindu god's have children ?
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-28-2010, 07:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z
Well then HInduism contradicts it self... because HInduism says he is an Object outside of us and then teach God is not outside ? So who is God if we are God ?
Please remember that Hinduism is not a single religion but is a civilizational culture that also contains many religions. So there is no contradiction. Some religions in Hinduism say that God is outside and therefore the object and some say that God is inside and therefore the subject.

format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z
Object is matter, tangible, something can be seen. God in Islam is not like that...
God may not be like that but God in Islam is placed outside and therefore is an object to what we are – the subject. Even if you can’t see the Islamic God, you can understand Him, can’t you? Understanding is a form of seeing. When you get to higher understanding, you would see that you are God – God is not someone outside you.
Reply

syed_z
07-28-2010, 08:05 PM
God may not be like that but God in Islam is placed outside and therefore is an object to what we are – the subject. Even if you can’t see the Islamic God, you can understand Him, can’t you? Understanding is a form of seeing. When you get to higher understanding, you would see that you are God – God is not someone outside you.
Allah hides Himself behind the Veil of creation, we could be close to Him or be far from Him, but can't be like Him... for Quran says clearly...

None is Like Him (Surah Ikhlas)


If you begin to think that You Yourself are God, then You would not worship God rather you would Worship yourself... and the Self within Mankind is Evil (i.e Nafs) i.e Ego and Pride which will take us far from Him... so thats ok if you decide to believe... however, that is not something in Islam...

and We cannot Understand Him fully... for He is Beyond the Reach of Human Perception...
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-28-2010, 08:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z
i.e who is free of the imperfection inherent in the concept of begetting a child as an extension of ones own being.
Going by Dr. Zakir Naik’s talk on the subject, I understand that this “begetting a child” was used to mean that God did not have sex with any woman to have a child, like the Muslims think it is implied in the case of the birth of Jesus as explained in the Bible. Is this the background for Allah saying He did not begat?

format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z
Does Hindu god's have children ?
Oh yes, lots of them. Remember Hindu Gods also moved on earth among humans.
Reply

syed_z
07-28-2010, 08:15 PM
Going by Dr. Zakir Naik’s talk on the subject, I understand that this “begetting a child” was used to mean that God did not have sex with any woman to have a child, like the Muslims think it is implied in the case of the birth of Jesus as explained in the Bible. Is this the background for Allah saying He did not begat?
well in case of Jesus or any Son that mankind might attribute to God...

Oh yes, lots of them. Remember Hindu Gods also moved on earth among humans.

well that shows they are weak, as it is an extension of ones own being.... and if gods can give birth, then they are also gods whom they give birth to, then since they procreate , do they die as well ?

If they do die and share power, then they are weak, and God by definition can only be some one who is not weak... otherwise then he is not god... and are there also female gods in Hindus ?
Reply

Insaanah
07-28-2010, 09:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
When you get to higher understanding, you would see that you are God – God is not someone outside you.
How would you reconcile that belief with the following quotes from Hindu scriptures?:

UPANISHADS:

The following verses from the Upanishads refer to the Concept of God:

1.
"Ekam evadvitiyam"
"He is One only without a second."
[Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1]1


2.
"Na casya kascij janita na cadhipah."
"Of Him there are neither parents nor lord."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9]2

You have parents


3.
"Na tasya pratima asti"
"There is no likeness of Him."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]3

If anyhting could be physically seen of god (which would be you in your claim) it must be a likeness of him.


4.
The following verses from the Upanishad allude to the inability of man to imagine God in a particular form:
"Na samdrse tisthati rupam asya, na caksusa pasyati kas canainam."
"His form is not to be seen; no one sees Him with the eye."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20]4

You can be seen.



THE VEDAS

Yajurveda

The following verses from the Yajurveda echo a similar concept of God:

1.
"na tasya pratima asti
"There is no image of Him."
[Yajurveda 32:3]5

If anything could be physically seen of god , it must be image of him.


2.
"shudhama poapvidham"
"He is bodyless and pure."
[Yajurveda 40:8]6

You have a body, and have to defaecate impurities.


3.
"Andhatama pravishanti ye asambhuti mupaste"
"They enter darkness, those who worship the natural elements" (Air, Water, Fire, etc.). "They sink deeper in darkness, those who worship sambhuti."
[Yajurveda 40:9]7

Sambhuti means created things, for example table, chair, idol, etc.


What you've asserted above doesn't agree with the above quotes from Hindu scriptures, on almost every count.

Peace.
Reply

aadil77
07-28-2010, 09:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Yes living beings are not only objects but also subjects. But another living being, outside of you the subject is for you an object.

Yes, if we use the right equipment, we can see germs. Likewise, if we use our equipment of understanding, we can see Allah – meaning we can understand the concept of Allah. And we will understand that Allah is none other than what we are.
stop with all this inner meaning spiritual crap, if you can't prove your point then don't make up some complicated drivel to explain nonsense, you're starting to sound like a christian trying to explain trinity
Reply

Trumble
07-29-2010, 04:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
stop with all this inner meaning spiritual crap, if you can't prove your point then don't make up some complicated drivel to explain nonsense, you're starting to sound like a christian trying to explain trinity
No, you 'stop' with your arrogant and ignorant disrespect for the beliefs of others. Why do you participate in 'comparative religion' when you clearly have no intention of trying to learn or understand anything outside of your own 'comfort zone'? Understanding does not imply agreement.

K.Venougopal is not 'making up' anything. If his explanations are too complicated for you that's hardly his fault; the concepts here do need a little effort to understand. Try putting some in.
Reply

Lynx
07-29-2010, 05:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal

I really do not understand the Quranic instructions about not insulting other peoples’ Gods but by unfailingly saying that Islam is the only true religion, does the Quran do aught else but insult other religions?
Well I am not sure what you find insulting about thinking that a particular belief system is not true. You don't believe in Scientology do you? Are you insulting Scientology if you told people that it wasn't true?

Relatively only a few people look, wish to look or have the capacity to look beyond idols. The idols are for the masses – popular Hinduism. It must also be remembered that Vedanta (comprising the more subtle teachings of Hinduism) is not a promise to the masses but to individuals who are ready to plunge into those subtle depths.


Your “closer to God” phrase appears to miss the point that God is that which the believers believe and if the idol worshipper believes his idol is God, then he would not have reason to believe he is far from God. However, Islam offers no prospect of closing the gap between God and the believer whereas Hinduism is all about the believer (worshiper) becoming one with the worshipped entity.
Well I understand the point you're getting at but maybe it's my exposure to Western style religions that tempts me to say that what you describe is not really worshiping God but rather worshiping a shadow of God, and for most, not even knowing that it's worshiping the shadow of God. To a follower of Islam or Christianity or Judaism their rituals are one step closer to the 'real' God and maybe that sort of explains the mentality that western religions have towards idol worshiping faiths like Hinduism (and I am using Idol worship in it's loose and commonly used sense of the word). I mean the typical Muslim, even if he needs guidane by rituals or an 'idol' as you might put it, knows exactly what's behind that idol whereas the typical Hindu won't know and this limited knowledge seems to extend from the way hindus worship. I don't claim there's anything necessarily wrong with this just that there's a striking difference between what you describe and how Islam & Muslims are.
Reply

Tyrion
07-29-2010, 05:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
I would, of course, place the Buddha in exactly the same lineage, although while he discovered and embodied 'ultimate truth' his much deeper understanding enabled him to dismiss any association of same with God or gods which are, of course, just as illusory as everything else we conceive. I don't expect you to agree with that, of course!!
Hey Trumble,

Would you mind explaining exactly how you view Muhammad (pbuh)? I don't know too much about Buddhism, so if you could flesh out your ideas on the matter I feel like I could learn something :p

(I'm trying really hard to get back on topic, and to get away from the Hinduism vs. Islam debate that seems to be taking place... :p)
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-29-2010, 09:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z
God would separate because otherwise it would not distinguish Him that He is God, for God is some One who is defined as Unique!
Does God have an ego problem that He would want to distinguish Himself? God is distinguished and unique anyway because He is the only phenomenon that is eternal.
Reply

Insaanah
07-29-2010, 10:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
When you get to higher understanding, you would see that you are God – God is not someone outside you.
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
God is distinguished and unique anyway because He is the only phenomenon that is eternal.
If you are God, and he is the only phenomenon that is eternal, you are certainly not eternal.

You are contradicting yourself. God either is eternal, or isn't.

Also, if you are God, you have impurities in you that you excrete and you sin as well, so to you, god is one who sins and is impure as well.

Something is seriously wrong with this whole concept. It is full of errors, contradictions and quite frankly, defeats all common sense!

Peace.
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-29-2010, 10:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z
Allah hides Himself behind the Veil of creation, we could be close to Him or be far from Him, but can't be like Him... for Quran says clearly...None is Like Him (Surah Ikhlas) If you begin to think that You Yourself are God, then You would not worship God rather you would Worship yourself... and We cannot Understand Him fully... for He is Beyond the Reach of Human Perception.
No one can be like Allah as described in the Quran for the simple reason that Allah is described as the creator. Actually, no one can be like any God described in any of the many religions of the world as creator. Please understand that the religions which say that we and God are one are actually talking about the oneness of existence in which there is no duality. In these religions there is no concept of God as a creator separate from His creation. Therefore it is only natural if Muslims and others think that it is stupid for man to consider himself as God. While it is not at all necessary for a Muslim or anyone to understand something if he does not wish to, those who are aware that there are religious or spiritual concepts beyond the duality religions are often tempted to write about it and its concepts and thereby, often when such views are expressed in forums participated in by people who believe that God and His creation are separate, there is bound to ensue a lot of criticism of each other’s position. The irony is that while the non-dualist can easily understand the position of the dualist because it is the path through which non-duality is attained, those at the duality level find it impossible to understand the non-dual position. This is particularly so of Muslims because free thought on these lines are frowned upon.

format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z
and the Self within Mankind is Evil (i.e Nafs) i.e Ego and Pride which will take us far from Him... so thats ok if you decide to believe... however, that is not something in Islam...
The self you are talking about is the smaller self or ego and all religions warn us about its pitfalls. This self is not the Self or the higher self spoken about as being one with God in the non-dual religions.
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-29-2010, 10:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
If you are God, and he is the only phenomenon that is eternal, you are certainly not eternal.
Yes. But there is something in us, called soul or essence or simply life, that is indeed eternal and one, therefore, with God.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
You are contradicting yourself. God either is eternal, or isn't.
God is eternal or whatever it is that is eternal may be called God, Allah, Brahman, Life, Consciousness, Soul etc. When that which is the formless eternal takes on forms, the drama of existence is enacted. You might to call this “taking on of forms” as creation. But strictly speaking it is not creation because creation implies the coming into being of a new phenomenon. Also, the eternal does not loose its eternalness when it chooses to take on ephemeral forms. Because the “taking on of forms” is not a creation but only a projection. The Sanskrit word shrishti is often translated as creation but actually it means projection. Someone used the phrase “shadow of Allah”. I like the phrase. Creation may indeed better be said the “shadow of Allah”.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
Also, if you are God, you have impurities in you that you excrete and you sin as well, so to you, god is one who sins and is impure as well.
Look, excretion, dung etc are not per se evil, are they? They are all part of existence each playing its role. Imagine what would happen to us if we eat and have constipation. Since you believe Allah created everything, did He not create excreta also or at least isn’t He responsible for the stuff call excreta? One thing cannot be another thing, let alone God be excreta. But that which is the substratum of everything is indeed God, include excreta. I am sorry if I hurt your sensibilities by putting it rather coarsely but I think this good-bad, like-dislike dichotomy is typical of the dualist mind which separates the Creator from His creation.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
Something is seriously wrong with this whole concept. It is full of errors, contradictions and quite frankly, is ridiculous. Peace.
What is wrong is the inability of some religions to go beyond duality. This leads such religions to be more about loyalty, reward-punishment, fear-appeasement etc. More unfortunate, it leads to schizophrenic minds, which results in violence in the name of religion.
Reply

revert2007
07-29-2010, 11:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
In Sahih Muslim, the Hadith related by Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, #5326, says:
"When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read "Sister of Harun", (i.e. Mary), in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born well before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger I asked him about that, and he said: "The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostle and pious persons who had gone before them.""





When this Muslim went to speak with the Christians of Najran he was under the impression that Mary was the actual sister of Aaron. And when the Christians objected he could not explain the problem.
Abraham had two wives and two children respectively...The jews came form Isaac and Arabs came from Ismail....So my Question..is this son of Abraham named Isaac is also known as Jesus pbuh as Jesus's name is Isaa or in English we say Isaac.?????????????????????????????????????????
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-29-2010, 11:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Well I am not sure what you find insulting about thinking that a particular belief system is not true. You don't believe in Scientology do you? Are you insulting Scientology if you told people that it wasn't true?
I may or may not believe Scientology to be true. But I certainly must give allowance for the fact that there are many who think Scientology is true. I cannot suggest that their belief is not true even for them. This is what Islam seems to be suggesting all through. This is precisely why Mohammad or his followers destroyed the idols of other religions (not just in Mecca). Could they not have practiced their new religion without destroying the idols or beliefs of another religion?

format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Well I understand the point you're getting at but maybe it's my exposure to Western style religions that tempts me to say that what you describe is not really worshiping God but rather worshiping a shadow of God, and for most, not even knowing that it's worshiping the shadow of God. To a follower of Islam or Christianity or Judaism their rituals are one step closer to the 'real' God and maybe that sort of explains the mentality that western religions have towards idol worshiping faiths like Hinduism (and I am using Idol worship in it's loose and commonly used sense of the word). I mean the typical Muslim, even if he needs guidane by rituals or an 'idol' as you might put it, knows exactly what's behind that idol whereas the typical Hindu won't know and this limited knowledge seems to extend from the way hindus worship. I don't claim there's anything necessarily wrong with this just that there's a striking difference between what you describe and how Islam & Muslims are.
Hindus like explain their idol worship by saying that though electricity is everywhere, it is transformed to manifest specific benefits by use of electrical gadgets. Idols do not belittle God but express Him in manifest ways. There is much more to idol worship than ignorant groupings in the dark as suggested by iconoclasts.
Reply

aadil77
07-29-2010, 11:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
K.Venougopal is not 'making up' anything. If his explanations are too complicated for you that's hardly his fault; the concepts here do need a little effort to understand. Try putting some in.
err no, he's making it up as he's going along, there is nothing to understand his explanations are now nonsensical
Reply

Insaanah
07-29-2010, 12:11 PM
Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
Also, if you are God, you have impurities in you that you excrete and you sin as well, so to you, god is one who sins and is impure as well.
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Look, excretion, dung etc are not per se evil, are they?
Note, I have not mentioned the word evil anywhere. I said impure. If you are God, and you sin, contain impurities as well as excrete them, then by your own definition, to you, god is impure and sins.

I reiterate, this whole concept is clearly and seriously wrong, for all who have even a few working brain cells, to see. It is full of errors, contradictions and quite frankly, defeats all common sense!

I only wish that you would use your logic and could see that!

Peace.
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-29-2010, 01:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
How would you reconcile that belief with the following quotes from Hindu scriptures?:
These Vedic quotes have now become well known among the Muslims ever since Dr. Zakir Naik wrote about it. He has actually short-charged his audience by not telling the complete truth about these quotations because his mind has been unable to move beyond the Quranic duality-stage and the belief in One Countable God.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
The following verses from the Upanishads refer to the Concept of God:
The One mentioned here is not talking about the countable One God of Islam. All through, the Vedic movement of thought is towards non-duality, culminating in the philosophical enquiries of the Upanishads. The One here simply means the essence of existence.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
Na casya kascij janita na cadhipah." Of Him there are neither parents nor lord.
If you have understood what I have stated above, you would see that all your quotes are only Vedic expressions of the truth of oneness of existence. They are certainly not speaking of a creator Allah as sought to be passed off by Dr. Zakir Naik.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
You have parents
At the dualistic level, all possibilities are given free play, including the consorting of the Gods.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
Na tasya pratima asti" There is no likeness of Him.
Of course, the form is not the formless, only a projection thereof.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
If anyhting could be physically seen of god (which would be you in your claim) it must be a likeness of him.
The formless takes on forms (avatar) and then we see Him. Please understand that the Vedas are not the only scriptural heritage of the Hindus and their spiritual heritage is not limited to just scriptures. Therefore even if a particular scripture does not support idol worship, it does not mean that idol worship is not part of Hindu heritage.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
The following verses from the Upanishad allude to the inability of man to imagine God in a particular form:"Na samdrse tisthati rupam asya, na caksusa pasyati kas canainam." His form is not to be seen; no one sees Him with the eye
The formless cannot be imagined. It is precisely for this reason that idol worship was introduced by the Hindus. It might surprise you to know that the most well known of the non-dualists in Hinduism, Adi Shankaracharya, himself introduced idol and temple worship in many parts of India. This proves the formless was given form (or had taken form) so that the formless could be approached by the common minds which might find it difficult to conceive of the formless.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
You can be seen. "shudhama poapvidham"He is bodyless and pure
Again, saying that in oneness of existence the formless abides.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
You have a body, and have to defaecate impurities
Tell me, Insaan, who are you really? Are you, for example, your hands? No. You are not your hands. Your hands belong to you. So who is this you? Seek to find out and you will see that you are not even your body, your name etc. You are actually that formless One. This is the meaning of positing that you are God.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
"Andhatama pravishanti ye asambhuti mupaste"
"They enter darkness, those who worship the natural elements" (Air, Water, Fire, etc.). They sink deeper in darkness, those who worship sambhuti. Sambhuti means created things, for example table, chair, idol, etc.
These verses only indicate that the pilgrim is encouraged to go forward with his pilgrimage till he discovers that what he has been seeking to worship is none other than what he himself is. Islam stops at Allah and doesn’t permit the pilgrim to proceed further. The Vedas prompt us to go beyond the realm of duality into the realms of non-duality.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
What you've asserted above doesn't agree with the above quotes from Hindu scriptures, on almost every count. Peace.
The Vedas have reached a level the Quran does not even attempt to. But that does not mean that the Vedas propagate the annihilation of the dualists who are idol worshippers, unlike what the Quran propagates.
Reply

Insaanah
07-29-2010, 01:15 PM
Woooaah, even twisting what is clearly stated in your own scriptures to suit yourself!

If you sink that low, then I have nothing else to say to you.

It is clear your agenda is not to learn but to propagate your own erroneous, contradictory beliefs, in whatever way you can, and you will stop at nothing to do that.

Peace.
Reply

جوري
07-29-2010, 01:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
Woooaah, even twisting what is clearly stated in your own scriptures to suit yourself!

If you sink that low, then I have nothing else to say to you.

It is clear your agenda is not to learn but to propagate your own erroneous, contradictory beliefs, in whatever way you can, and you will stop at nothing to do that.

Peace.
This is one place where I don't mind them stating their beliefs, the more they talk about it, the more convoluted and patently erroneous, they actually give you ammo that you didn't know of, like the worship of phallus-- it just gets better and better doesn't it? Dung, rats, phallus, caste system, multi colored gods-- I don't know who you can convince of that-- but it has certainly been very enlightening!
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-29-2010, 01:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
Note, I have not mentioned the word evil anywhere. I said impure. If you are God, and you sin, contain impurities as well as excrete them, then by your own definition, to you, god is impure and sins.
The “I” that each one of us is, is God. I am not my body or name. “I” am the eternal essence of reality, am the life that enlivens. So God is not impure but that does not mean that God has nothing to do with the so-called impure. Excreta may be considered impure but that does not mean it is not beneficial. When you are sick and go to the hospital, one of the first tests they want to do is a stool-test. So even excreta helps us provided we have a mind to co-opt it. Fortunately, medical science does not pass value judgements and has not excluded excreta from its scheme of things.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
I reiterate, this whole concept is clearly and seriously wrong, for all who have even a few working brain cells, to see. It is full of errors, contradictions and quite frankly, defeats all common sense! I only wish that you would use your logic and could see that! Peace.
I would equally forcefully reiterate that unless Muslims get to understand the concept of non-duality, in which event they would become peaceful Sufis, Muslims’ thinking would be captive to the limitations of dualistic thoughts.
Reply

K.Venugopal
07-29-2010, 01:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
Woooaah, even twisting what is clearly stated in your own scriptures to suit yourself! If you sink that low, then I have nothing else to say to you.It is clear your agenda is not to learn but to propagate your own erroneous, contradictory beliefs, in whatever way you can, and you will stop at nothing to do that.Peace.
Hinduism is not restricted to one scripture and Hindus have the choice of many scriptures. Hindus also have the choice to understand his scriptures from his own point of view for it is meant to be that way. All scriptures have many layers of meaning written into them and we can grasp it at the level we are comfortable. Why, with just one scripture, have not Muslims many schools of thought? Therefore please do not appear to imply that Hindus must stick to a particular scripture of your choice and interpret it as the ace Muslim scholar Dr. Zakir Naik interprets it, particularly when the good Doctor puts his blinkers on while on the subject of non-duality.
Reply

Insaanah
07-29-2010, 01:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
the more they talk about it, the more convoluted and patently erroneous, they actually give you ammo that you didn't know of, like the worship of phallus-- it just gets better and better doesn't it?
True...

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I don't know who you can convince of that--
Only someone without a brain cell or two...

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
but it has certainly been very enlightening!
And entertaining at that! I've had a few good laughs along the way!

They go from idol worship to thinking that they are god, and telling us that we should believe that we are god too!
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!